Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

3,880 Full-Text Articles 2,649 Authors 1,737,639 Downloads 136 Institutions

All Articles in Evidence

Faceted Search

3,880 full-text articles. Page 4 of 79.

Deceptively Simple: Framing, Intuition And Judicial Gatekeeping Of Forensic Feature-Comparison Methods Evidence, Jane Campbell Moriarty 2018 Duquesne University School of Law

Deceptively Simple: Framing, Intuition And Judicial Gatekeeping Of Forensic Feature-Comparison Methods Evidence, Jane Campbell Moriarty

Jane Campbell Moriarty

During the Symposium for the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, held at Boston College on October 27, 2017, the scientists, statisticians, legal academics, and criminal defense lawyers presented a unified theme: the federal courts have not fulfilled their role as gatekeepers to exclude or limit potentially unreliable feature-comparison methods of forensic science evidence (“FCM evidence”). The only voiced dissents came from the DOJ and FBI lawyers, who argued that the courts had been admitting such pattern-matching evidence properly and that the evidence was indeed reliable.


The Admissibility Of Sampling Evidence To Prove Individual Damages In Class Actions, Hillel J. Bavli, John Kenneth Felter 2018 Harvard Institute for Quantitative Social Science

The Admissibility Of Sampling Evidence To Prove Individual Damages In Class Actions, Hillel J. Bavli, John Kenneth Felter

Boston College Law Review

The 2016 Supreme Court decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo revived the use of “representative” or sampling evidence in class actions. Federal courts are now more receptive to class plaintiffs’ efforts to prove classwide liability and, occasionally, aggregate damages, with sampling evidence. However, federal courts still routinely deny motions for class certification because they find that calculations of class members’ individual damages defeat the predominance prerequisite of Rule 23(b)(3). As a result, meritorious classwide claims founder. In this paper, we combine legal and statistical analyses and propose a novel solution to this dilemma that adheres to the ...


Rethinking The Law Of Legal Negotiation: Confidentiality Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 408 And Related State Laws, Richard C. Reuben 2018 University of Missouri School of Law

Rethinking The Law Of Legal Negotiation: Confidentiality Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 408 And Related State Laws, Richard C. Reuben

Boston College Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and related state laws are among the most important rules to implement the national policy favoring the settlement of legal disputes. These rules bar the introduction of statements made during negotiations leading to the resolution of legal disputes. However, comprehensive analysis of the rule’s text, doctrinal history, and modern context demonstrates that the rule no longer meets its noble goals. Rather, the rule has evolved textually from a remarkably narrow and complex categorical presumption of inadmissibility with limited exceptions to a simpler rule that gives courts considerable deference to admit such evidence when they ...


To Understand Us V. Microsoft, Consider 'Acme V. Shamrock', Peter B. Rutledge, Amanda W. Newton 2018 University of Georgia Law School

To Understand Us V. Microsoft, Consider 'Acme V. Shamrock', Peter B. Rutledge, Amanda W. Newton

Popular Media

The February 27, 2018, Supreme Court argument in United States v. Microsoft Corp. raises profound questions about issues of executive power, corporate governance, technology, judicial power and international affairs. At stake for the government is the scope of its investigative authority to obtain information located in a foreign country, irrespective of that country’s laws. At stake for Microsoft is its ability to organize its international corporate affairs and the predictability of the laws that will govern those affairs. This article analyzes the potential effects of this critical Supreme Court case.


Panel Discussion: Author Meets Critic, 2018 Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Panel Discussion: Author Meets Critic

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.


Panel Discussion: Ethnographic Evidence, 2018 Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Panel Discussion: Ethnographic Evidence

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.


Panel Discussion: Ethnography, Ethics & Law, 2018 Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Panel Discussion: Ethnography, Ethics & Law

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.


Standing Under State Search And Seizure Provision: Why The Minnesota Supreme Court Should Have Rejected The Federal Standards And Instead Invoked Greater Protection Under Its Own Constitution In State V. Carter, Rebecca C. Garrett 2018 University of Maine School of Law

Standing Under State Search And Seizure Provision: Why The Minnesota Supreme Court Should Have Rejected The Federal Standards And Instead Invoked Greater Protection Under Its Own Constitution In State V. Carter, Rebecca C. Garrett

Maine Law Review

In State v. Carter, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a criminal defendant had “standing” to challenge an alleged search under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a police officer who had peered in the window of an apartment where the defendant was participating in a drug-packaging operation with the apartment's leaseholder. A divided court held that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment. Therefore, the defendant had standing to challenge the legality of the police officer's observations pursuant to ...


Identifying And Preventing Improper Prosecutorial Comment In Closing Argument, Robert W. Clifford 2018 University of Maine School of Law

Identifying And Preventing Improper Prosecutorial Comment In Closing Argument, Robert W. Clifford

Maine Law Review

In recent years, several decisions of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court have addressed the comments of prosecutors in final argument before criminal juries. Three of those decisions in particular have caused concern among prosecutors and have stirred discussion in the Maine legal community. In vacating convictions in State v. Steen, State v. Casella, and State v. Tripp, the Law Court focused on the language used by the prosecutors during closing argument and concluded that those prosecutors impermissibly expressed personal opinion concerning the credibility of the defendants, or witnesses called by the defendants. This Article examines ...


Evaluating The Reliability Of Nonscientific Expert Testimony: A Partial Answer To The Questions Left Unresolved By Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael, Edward J. Imwinkelried 2018 University of Maine School of Law

Evaluating The Reliability Of Nonscientific Expert Testimony: A Partial Answer To The Questions Left Unresolved By Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Maine Law Review

For almost three-quarters of a century, the venerable standard announced in Frye v. United States governed the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down the Frye decision in 1923. Under Frye, the proponent of testimony had to demonstrate that the expert's testimony was based on a generally accepted theory or technique. However, in 1993--seventy years after the rendition of the Frye decision--another court sitting in Washington, the United States Supreme Court, overturned the standard. The Court did so in its now celebrated Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision. In the interim ...


Goldilocks And The Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter 2018 College of William & Mary Law School

Goldilocks And The Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Criticism of the hearsay exceptions embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence has reached a fever pitch in recent years. With scholars calling for the abrogation of the entire hearsay regime or of individual exceptions within it and the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules exploring hearsay amendments, the time for genuine hearsay soul-searching may be at hand. This Article suggests that aggressive proposals to scuttle existing doctrine entirely in favor of alternative approaches to hearsay are overly broad, rejecting the benefits of significant portions of existing doctrine that are functioning well and threatening costly consequences that could make matters worse ...


Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis 2018 Selected Works

Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis

James W. Ellis

No abstract provided.


Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. McCormack 2018 University of Maine School of Law

Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. Mccormack

Maine Law Review

Defendants regularly argue that a Review Board's decision must be overturned because it is not supported by expert testimony. Boards counter that they are qualified, by virtue of their role as the guardians of the standards for their profession, to determine the appropriateness of a defendant's conduct without the assistance of expert testimony. When courts address these arguments, they routinely ask if expert testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care in disciplinary hearings before a professional licensing board. Courts answer this question differently. In fact there is a seeming schism among the states about the importance ...


State V. Brackett: Does The State Have A Right Of Appeal?, Theodore A. Small 2018 University of Maine School of Law

State V. Brackett: Does The State Have A Right Of Appeal?, Theodore A. Small

Maine Law Review

In State v. Brackett, the defendant was charged with kidnapping, gross sexual assault, burglary, and criminal threatening with the use of a dangerous weapon. The State of Maine filed an in limine motion to exclude any evidence relating to the victim's past sexual behavior, including evidence that the victim may have been a prostitute sometime prior to the incident in dispute. Although evidence of a victim's past sexual behavior is generally inadmissible. The State appealed. A divided Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, declined to rule on the merits of the appeal, holding that the ...


No Need For Cities To Despair After Bank Of America Corporation V. City Of Miami: How Patent Law Can Assist In Proving Predatory Loans Directly Cause Municipal Blight Under The Fair Housing Act, Jesse D.H. Snyder 2018 University of Maine School of Law

No Need For Cities To Despair After Bank Of America Corporation V. City Of Miami: How Patent Law Can Assist In Proving Predatory Loans Directly Cause Municipal Blight Under The Fair Housing Act, Jesse D.H. Snyder

Maine Law Review

Lack of sanguinity for cities was manifest after the Supreme Court’s May 1, 2017, opinion in Bank of America Corporation v. City of Miami. Although Bank of America recognized that cities have Article III standing to sue for economic injuries suffered from predatory lending, the Supreme Court rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s more lenient causation standard, favoring proof of “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.” Doubtless the result could have been worse for cities suing on the premise that racially discriminatory lending caused municipal blight. The courthouse doors could have closed if the ...


Recent Developments Concerning Similar Fact Evidence In Singapore: Pushing The Boundaries Of Admissibility – Pp V Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh [2017] 3 Slr 66; Micheal Anak Garing V Pp [2017] 1 Slr 748, Eunice CHUA 2018 Singapore Management University

Recent Developments Concerning Similar Fact Evidence In Singapore: Pushing The Boundaries Of Admissibility – Pp V Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh [2017] 3 Slr 66; Micheal Anak Garing V Pp [2017] 1 Slr 748, Eunice Chua

Research Collection School Of Law

This piece addressestwo recent local decisions on similar fact evidence that demonstratethe court’s difficulties with reconciling the provisions of the Evidence Actwith a more flexible approach that can be developed through the common law.These two cases extend the basis for admitting similar fact evidence beyond ss11(b), 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act.The application of the common law balancing test comparing prejudicial effectand probative value has also been broadened to consider factors such as the timingof the objection to the evidence and whether a co-accused wishes to rely on thesimilar fact evidence. Yet, the cases do ...


Innovating Criminal Justice, Natalie Ram 2018 Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Innovating Criminal Justice, Natalie Ram

Northwestern University Law Review

From secret stingray devices that can pinpoint a suspect’s location, to advanced forensic DNA-analysis tools, to recidivism risk statistic software—the use of privately developed criminal justice technologies is growing. So too is a concomitant pattern of trade secret assertion surrounding these technologies. This Article charts the role of private law secrecy in shielding criminal justice activities, demonstrating that such secrecy is pervasive, problematic, and ultimately unnecessary for the production of well-designed criminal justice tools.

This Article makes three contributions to the existing literature. First, the Article establishes that trade secrecy now permeates American criminal justice, shielding privately developed ...


Ask Versus Tell: Potential Confusion When Child Witnesses Are Questioned About Conversastions, Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Kelly McWilliams, Thomas D. Lyon 2018 Arizona State University

Ask Versus Tell: Potential Confusion When Child Witnesses Are Questioned About Conversastions, Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Kelly Mcwilliams, Thomas D. Lyon

University of Southern California Legal Studies Working Paper Series

Children’s potential confusion between “ask” and “tell” can lead to misunderstandings when child witnesses are asked to report prior conversations. The verbs distinguish both between interrogating and informing and between requesting and commanding. Children’s understanding was examined using both field (i.e., Study 1) and laboratory (i.e., Studies 2-4) methods. Study 1 examined 100 5- to 12-year-olds’ trial testimony in child sexual abuse cases, and found that potentially ambiguous use of ask and tell was common, typically found in yes/no questions that elicited unelaborated answers, and virtually never clarified by attorneys or child witnesses. Studies 2-4 ...


Federal Rule 26(A)(2) Expert Witness Disclosures: Strategies For Composing And Attacking Expert Disclosures, Douglas B. Bates, Chelsea R. Stanley, James L. Burt III 2018 Stites & Harbison, PLLC

Federal Rule 26(A)(2) Expert Witness Disclosures: Strategies For Composing And Attacking Expert Disclosures, Douglas B. Bates, Chelsea R. Stanley, James L. Burt Iii

Journal of Air Law and Commerce

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(A)(2) governs disclosure of expert testimony. The rule purports to create a clear delineation between experts that must provide a written report and those that do not. The rule then outlines the disclosure requirements that must be satisfied as to each type of expert. This article focuses on the implications of Rule 26(A)(2) in practice, with an emphasis on the field of aviation litigation. The article begins by discussing the general difference between non-retained experts and retained experts and the disclosure requirements associated with each. The article then progresses into a ...


The Logic And Limits Of Event Studies In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach, Jonathan Klick 2018 University of Pennsylvania Law School

The Logic And Limits Of Event Studies In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach, Jonathan Klick

Faculty Scholarship

Event studies have become increasingly important in securities fraud litigation after the Supreme Court’s decision in Halliburton II. Litigants have used event study methodology, which empirically analyzes the relationship between the disclosure of corporate information and the issuer’s stock price, to provide evidence in the evaluation of key elements of federal securities fraud, including materiality, reliance, causation, and damages. As the use of event studies grows and they increasingly serve a gatekeeping function in determining whether litigation will proceed beyond a preliminary stage, it will be critical for courts to use them correctly.

This Article explores an array ...


Digital Commons powered by bepress