Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Damaged Goods: Why, In Light Of The Supreme Court's Recent Punitive Damages Jurisprudence, Congress Must Amend The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael S. Vitale
Damaged Goods: Why, In Light Of The Supreme Court's Recent Punitive Damages Jurisprudence, Congress Must Amend The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael S. Vitale
Vanderbilt Law Review
Since the 1980s, a wide range of courts and commentators have expressed concern over large punitive damages awards handed out by civil juries against a wide array of tortfeasors. A late 2001 study revealed that from 1985 to 2001, eight multi-billion dollar punitive damages awards were granted, with four of them being handed down in the years 1999 to 2001 alone.' Not surprisingly, all but one of these verdicts were handed down against large corporations. Among the current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens in particular has regularly noted the especially dangerous tendency the current punitive …
Reenvisioning Law Through The Dna Lens, Edward K. Cheng
Reenvisioning Law Through The Dna Lens, Edward K. Cheng
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
In recent times, no development has transformed the practice of criminal justice as much as DNA evidence. In little over fifteen years, DNA profiling has produced nothing short of a paradigm shift.1 For police and prosecutors, DNA has become a potent weapon for identifying and convicting criminals. Trace biological material left at a crime scene now provides critical evidence for generating leads through "cold searches" of DNA databases and for convicting defendants at trial. At the same time, for defense attorneys, DNA has become an invaluable tool for seeking exonerations, because just as DNA can link defendants to crimes, it …
Mitochondrial Dna: Emerging Legal Issues, Edward K. Cheng
Mitochondrial Dna: Emerging Legal Issues, Edward K. Cheng
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
This article will briefly survey some of the current and emerging legal issues surrounding mtDNA evidence. Parts I and II discuss basic evidentiary questions, including mtDNA's reliability and admissibility under Daubert as well as the potential problem of jury confusion regarding the probative value of mtDNA. Part III considers the broader potential of mtDNA to supplant microscopic hair analysis, a technique often criticized for its subjectivity and high error rate. Finally, Part IV explores the unique privacy concerns raised by the maternal inheritance of mtDNA, specifically in the context of DNA databanks.
Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon
Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Nearly every treatment of scientific evidence begins with a faithful comparison between the Frye and Daubert standards. Since 1993, jurists and legal scholars have spiritedly debated which standard is preferable and whether particular states should adopt one standard or the other. These efforts beg the question: Does a state's choice of scientific admissibility standard matter? A growing number of scholars suspect that the answer is no. Under this theory, the import of the Supreme Court's Daubert decision was not in its doctrinal standard, but rather in the general consciousness it raised about the problems of unreliable scientific evidence. This Article …
Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty Of Deliberately Disregarding, Chris Guthrie, Andrew J. Wistrich
Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty Of Deliberately Disregarding, Chris Guthrie, Andrew J. Wistrich
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Due process requires courts to make decisions based on the evidence before them without regard to information outside of the record. Skepticism about the ability of jurors to ignore inadmissible information is widespread. Empirical research confirms that this skepticism is well founded. Many courts and commentators, however, assume that judges can accomplish what jurors cannot. This Article reports the results of experiments we have conducted to determine whether judges can ignore inadmissible information. We found that the judges who participated in our experiments struggled to perform this challenging mental task. The judges had difficulty disregarding demands disclosed during a settlement …