Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (6)
- Mercer University School of Law (3)
- University of Washington School of Law (3)
- West Virginia University (3)
- Cleveland State University (2)
-
- North Carolina Central University School of Law (2)
- University of Michigan Law School (2)
- University of Richmond (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Brigham Young University Law School (1)
- Florida State University College of Law (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- UIC School of Law (1)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (1)
- University of the District of Columbia School of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (7)
- Expert evidence (3)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (2)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (2)
-
- Arizona v. Bible (1)
- Article 1 section 7 (1)
- Attorney Accountability Act (1)
- Authentication (1)
- Barefoot v. Estelle (1)
- Clever v. Hillberry (1)
- Complex litigation (1)
- Conditional relevance (1)
- Confidential information (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Custody of children (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Elliott v. Pearl (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Frye v. United States (1)
- Grand Jury Testimony (1)
- Grand Jury Transcripts (1)
- Hangar v. United States (1)
- Impeachment (1)
- Intentionalism (1)
- Intertextualism (1)
- Medical malpractice (1)
- Mercado v. Ahmed (1)
- Publication
-
- Maryland Law Review (6)
- Mercer Law Review (3)
- Washington Law Review (3)
- West Virginia Law Review (3)
- Cleveland State Law Review (2)
-
- Michigan Law Review (2)
- North Carolina Central Law Review (2)
- University of Richmond Law Review (2)
- American University Law Review (1)
- BYU Law Review (1)
- Buffalo Law Review (1)
- Florida State University Law Review (1)
- Seattle University Law Review (1)
- UIC Law Review (1)
- University of the District of Columbia Law Review (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 30
Full-Text Articles in Law
Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell
Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell
Mercer Law Review
- Objections
- Relevancy
- Privilege
- Witnesses
- Opinion Testimony
- Hearsay
- Authentication
Third-Party Modification Of Protective Orders Under Rule 26©, Patrick S. Kim
Third-Party Modification Of Protective Orders Under Rule 26©, Patrick S. Kim
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that similarly situated litigants always should be given access to protected discovered materials, while nonlitigants should gain access to protected materials only in exceptional circumstances. This approach effectively balances the privacy and property interests of the original parties and the intervening parties with the interests of adjudicative efficiency. Part I establishes that there is no general public right of access to civil discovery and that courts should disregard such purported rights when considering whether to modify a protective order. Part II identifies three interests that courts should weigh when considering whether to modify a protective order: the …
Conditional Probative Value And The Reconstruction Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Dale A. Nance
Conditional Probative Value And The Reconstruction Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Dale A. Nance
Michigan Law Review
In a recent article, Richard Friedman articulates a modified and generalized version of the doctrine of conditional relevance, which he calls "conditional probative value." This version comes in response to a substantial body of academic criticism of the traditional doctrine. As one of the critics to whom Professor Friedman responds, I offer this reply with two purposes in mind: (1) to clarify the relationship between Friedman's analysis and my earlier reinterpretation of the conditional relevance doctrine; and (2) to address Friedman's specific proposals with regard to the Federal Rules of Evidence. I conclude that Friedman's articulation helps clarify the logic …
Dna Profiling In North Carolina, James Morgan
Dna Profiling In North Carolina, James Morgan
North Carolina Central Law Review
No abstract provided.
Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination, Charles W. Ehrhardt, Stephanie J. Young
Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination, Charles W. Ehrhardt, Stephanie J. Young
Florida State University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Hewitt V. Kalish: Qualifying As An "Expert Competent To Testify" Under O.C.G.A Section 9-11-9.1, Richard T. Hills
Hewitt V. Kalish: Qualifying As An "Expert Competent To Testify" Under O.C.G.A Section 9-11-9.1, Richard T. Hills
Mercer Law Review
In Hewett v. Kalish, plaintiff, Hewett, sued Kalish, a podiatrist, for the negligent treatment of her tarsal tunnel syndrome condition. As required by Official Code of Georgia Annotated section 9-11-9.1, plaintiff filed with her complaint the affidavit of an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Alan D. Davis. The affidavit set forth Dr. Davis' professional credentials, his hospital affiliations, and his curriculum vitae. The relevant portion of the affidavit provided:
I am... competent to testify as an expert on behalf of [plaintiff] in an action for professional malpractice arising out of the diagnosis, care and treatment of [plaintiff] from January 1988 through …
The Admissibiity Of Inculpatory Statements In Washington Under The Rule For Declarations Against Interest After Williamson V. United States, Julianna Gortner
The Admissibiity Of Inculpatory Statements In Washington Under The Rule For Declarations Against Interest After Williamson V. United States, Julianna Gortner
Washington Law Review
Washington courts hold that where a statement by an unavailable declarant, offered in the trial of a third party inculpated by the statement, is predominantly disserving to the declarant's penal interest, the statement is admissible under the hearsay exception for declarations against interest. Federal courts have split on the admissibility of such declarations, with some courts holding that any non-disserving portions must be severed and excluded. In Williamson v. United States, the United States Supreme Court narrowed the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) on declarations against interest and held that only the individual portions of such statements that …
The Presumption Of Innocence Imperiled: The New Federal Rules Of Evidence 413-415 And The Use Of Other Sexual-Offense Evidence In Washington, Jeffrey G. Pickett
The Presumption Of Innocence Imperiled: The New Federal Rules Of Evidence 413-415 And The Use Of Other Sexual-Offense Evidence In Washington, Jeffrey G. Pickett
Washington Law Review
The U.S. Congress has provisionally enacted three new federal rules of evidence (FRE). In cases of sexual assault or child molestation, FRE 413-415 allow the use, for any relevant purpose, of sexual assault or child molestation evidence not charged in the indictment or information. The new rules would operate in contravention of the traditional prohibition against using evidence of other misconduct for the purpose of proving that the defendant acted in conformity with a particular character trait on the occasion in question. This Comment surveys the arguments for and against the proposed changes. It concludes that Washington should not elect …
Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell
Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell
Mercer Law Review
In recent past evidence surveys, the author has suggested, perhaps presumptuously, that the Eleventh Circuit has markedly decreased its level of scrutiny of district court evidentiary decisions. It appears that in most cases, the Eleventh Circuit is willing to defer broadly to the discretion afforded district judges in evidentiary rulings. As a result, the number of Eleventh Circuit decisions in which evidentiary issues played a predominant part has decreased. Decisions rendered by the Eleventh Circuit during the current survey period suggest that the court is allocating its resources to evidentiary issues in which appellate guidance is broadly needed rather than …
Is The Doctor Hostile--Obstructive Impairments And The Hostility Rule In Federal Black Lung Claims, Timothy F. Cogan
Is The Doctor Hostile--Obstructive Impairments And The Hostility Rule In Federal Black Lung Claims, Timothy F. Cogan
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Bitter Battles: The Use Of Psychological Evaluations In Child Custody Disputes In West Virginia, Alison Richey Mcburney
Bitter Battles: The Use Of Psychological Evaluations In Child Custody Disputes In West Virginia, Alison Richey Mcburney
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Abandoning New York's "General Acceptance" Requirement: Redesigning Proposed Rule Of Evidence 702(B) After Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Stuart J. Graham
Abandoning New York's "General Acceptance" Requirement: Redesigning Proposed Rule Of Evidence 702(B) After Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Stuart J. Graham
Buffalo Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Six Step Analysis Of Other Purposes Evidence Pursuant To Rule 404(B) Of The North Carolina Rules Of Evidence, T. M. Ringer Jr.
A Six Step Analysis Of Other Purposes Evidence Pursuant To Rule 404(B) Of The North Carolina Rules Of Evidence, T. M. Ringer Jr.
North Carolina Central Law Review
No abstract provided.
Opening The Door To The Grand Jury: Abandoning Secrecy For Secrecy's Sake, George Edward Dazzo
Opening The Door To The Grand Jury: Abandoning Secrecy For Secrecy's Sake, George Edward Dazzo
University of the District of Columbia Law Review
The grand jury in the United States is hailed by its proponents as an indispensable buffer of protection from malicious and unfounded prosecution by the State. Critics, however, liken the investigatory body to a rubber stamp of the prosecutor, analogous to early English grand jurors who were subject to the influences of the Monarch. Criticism of the grand jury often focuses on the grand jury's potential for oppression rather than protection of the individual.' In particular, it is the secrecy of the grand jury that sparks the most debate.'
The Advocate's Conflicting Obligations Vis-A.-Vis Adverse Medical Evidence In Social Security Proceedings, Robert E. Rains
The Advocate's Conflicting Obligations Vis-A.-Vis Adverse Medical Evidence In Social Security Proceedings, Robert E. Rains
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Classical Rhetoric, Practical Reasoning, And The Law Of Evidence , Eileen A. Scallen
Classical Rhetoric, Practical Reasoning, And The Law Of Evidence , Eileen A. Scallen
American University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin
Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin
University of Richmond Law Review
Expert witnesses are at once detested and treasured. The scorn is significant because of the increasingly prominent role experts play in both civil and criminal litigation. Experts are seen as mercenaries, prostitutes or hired guns, witnesses devoid of principle who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. Experts are not impartial professionals who explain difficult concepts to the trier of fact. Rather, experts become advocates for the side who hired them. The consequences of this role change are not desirable: experts testify to matters beyond their expertise, render opinions that are unreliable, speculative or outside what the experts would be …
The Maryland Rules Of Evidence - The New Maryland Rules Of Evidence: Survey, Analysis And Critique, Alan D. Hornstein
The Maryland Rules Of Evidence - The New Maryland Rules Of Evidence: Survey, Analysis And Critique, Alan D. Hornstein
Maryland Law Review
No abstract provided.
Residual Hearsay Exceptions: A New Opening?, Jeffrey E. Greene
Residual Hearsay Exceptions: A New Opening?, Jeffrey E. Greene
Maryland Law Review
No abstract provided.
What Is A "Crime Relevant To Credibility"?, James A. Protin
What Is A "Crime Relevant To Credibility"?, James A. Protin
Maryland Law Review
No abstract provided.
An Opinion: Federal Judges Misconstrue Rule 704 (Or Is That An Impermissible Legal Conclusion), Kathy Jo Cook
An Opinion: Federal Judges Misconstrue Rule 704 (Or Is That An Impermissible Legal Conclusion), Kathy Jo Cook
Cleveland State Law Review
This article addresses the need to formulate a uniform and predictable approach to the admissibility of expert opinion testimony which relates the law to the facts. First, it briefly discusses the history of expert opinion testimony. Second, it discusses, through a case analysis, the difficult, if not impossible task that courts have assumed in attempting to differentiate between two types of expert opinions: (1) those which are, by their nature, factual; and (2) those which require some level of legal analysis-directly relating the law to the facts of the case. Finally, this article suggests an alternative approach which is arguably …
Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones
Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones
University of Richmond Law Review
The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (the Rules) resulted in a more liberal standard for the admission and use of various forms of evidence. For example, the Rules altered the definition of "relevant evidence" increasing the scope of evidence that can be presented to a jury. Also, the Rules per- mit prior inconsistent statements to be admitted as substantive evidence rather than for impeachment purposes only. The Advisory Committee enunciated these changes, and other changes resulting from the adoption of the Rules, in their notes accompanying the Rules.
Codifying The Rule On Expert Testimony: Why Traditional Analysis Should Be Generally Acceptable, Kevin M. Carroll
Codifying The Rule On Expert Testimony: Why Traditional Analysis Should Be Generally Acceptable, Kevin M. Carroll
Maryland Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Meaning Of "Facts Or Data" In Federal Rule Of Evidence 703: The Significance Of The Supreme Court's Decision To Rely On Federal Rule 702 In Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Edward J. Imwinkelried
The Meaning Of "Facts Or Data" In Federal Rule Of Evidence 703: The Significance Of The Supreme Court's Decision To Rely On Federal Rule 702 In Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Edward J. Imwinkelried
Maryland Law Review
No abstract provided.
Simplifying The Law In Medical Malpractice: The Use Of Practice Guidelines As The Standard Of Care In Medical Malpractice Litigation, Sam A. Mcconkey Iv
Simplifying The Law In Medical Malpractice: The Use Of Practice Guidelines As The Standard Of Care In Medical Malpractice Litigation, Sam A. Mcconkey Iv
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Black Rage: The Illegitimacy Of A Criminal Defense, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 205 (1995), Kimberly M. Copp
Black Rage: The Illegitimacy Of A Criminal Defense, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 205 (1995), Kimberly M. Copp
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Impeachment Of Party By Prior Inconsistent Statement In Compromise Negotiations: Admissibility Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 408, Fred S. Hjelmeset
Impeachment Of Party By Prior Inconsistent Statement In Compromise Negotiations: Admissibility Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 408, Fred S. Hjelmeset
Cleveland State Law Review
This note will explore the concept of compromise and the public policy in furtherance of compromise and settlement, and then discuss whether Rule 408,in its current form, is maximizing its potential to effectively serve that public policy. The note concludes that an amendment extending Rule 408's protective reach to exclude a party's prior inconsistent statements in compromise negotiations from admission into evidence for impeachment purposes would strengthen the inducement to settle claims without erecting any new substantial obstacles in the way of the truth-finding process. The central rationale is that, if the laws permit compromise negotiations to become arenas where …
Toward Uniform Application Of A Federal Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Catherine M. Baytion
Toward Uniform Application Of A Federal Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Catherine M. Baytion
Washington Law Review
In federal courts, Federal Rule of Evidence 501 governs all privileges, including the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Unlike many state statutes that explicitly recognize the psychotherapist-patient privilege and define its scope through exceptions, Rule 501 merely directs courts to use their reason and experience to interpret common law principles. Under this vague standard, the federal circuits lack uniformity in their treatment of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. This Comment suggests that Congress should explicitly recognize the privilege and define its scope through exceptions. To support this conclusion, this Comment discusses the justifications for recognizing a psychotherapist-patient privilege, uses the paradigm of formal versus nonformal …
The Plain Feel Doctrine In Washington: An Opportunity To Provide Greater Protections Of Privacy To Citizens Of This State, Laura T. Bradley
The Plain Feel Doctrine In Washington: An Opportunity To Provide Greater Protections Of Privacy To Citizens Of This State, Laura T. Bradley
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment argues that Washington should return to an independent analysis of search and seizure doctrine under article I, section 7 of the state constitution and reject the admission of contraband seized during the course of a pat-down frisk. The decisions in Hudson and Dickerson have established an unnecessary and unworkable standard, and involve an increased invasion of personal privacy without the counter-balancing need to protect the safety of others. The plain feel doctrine as announced in Dickerson and Hudson developed from two well-established concepts in search and seizure law-the Terry frisk of persons to discover weapons and the plain …
General Evidentiary Objections Still Valid In Maryland, Dinah S. Leventhal
General Evidentiary Objections Still Valid In Maryland, Dinah S. Leventhal
Maryland Law Review
No abstract provided.