Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Saidi Banda V The People Scz Appeal No. 114 Of 2015), Mwaka Chizinga
Saidi Banda V The People Scz Appeal No. 114 Of 2015), Mwaka Chizinga
SAIPAR Case Review
No abstract provided.
Enock Kahale & 3 Others V The People [2021] Zmca 26, John Hatchard
Enock Kahale & 3 Others V The People [2021] Zmca 26, John Hatchard
SAIPAR Case Review
In both criminal and civil cases, the general rule is that a witness may only testify as to matters of fact of which they have personal knowledge. Thus, a witness may not draw inferences from the facts, speculate about the causes of the facts or make value judgments about those facts. The case of Kahale is unusual in that the expert who was required to give evidence, i.e., the ballistics expert, did not do so whilst PW7, a non-expert, was permitted to give evidence that required an expert in the relevant field. There was therefore a complete absence of expert …
Domesticating Comity: Territorial U.S. Discovery In Violation Of Foreign Privacy Laws, Corby F. Burger
Domesticating Comity: Territorial U.S. Discovery In Violation Of Foreign Privacy Laws, Corby F. Burger
Cornell Law Review
The European Union's (EU) recently enacted General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is being billed as "the most important change in data privacy regulation in 20 years." The GDPR sets forth a stringent set of binding regulations that govern how data controllers and processors manage the private electronic data of EU citizens. In an audacious effort to ensure comprehensive privacy protection for EU citizens in a globally connected digital landscape, EU regulators have made the GDPR apply extraterritorially. The regulation extends beyond the borders of the European Union, reaching any entity that stores or processes the personal data of EU citizens …
Staying Faithful To The Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont
Staying Faithful To The Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont
Cornell Law Review
Academics have never quite understood the standards of proof or, indeed, much about the theory of proof Their formulations beget probabilistic musings, which beget all sorts of paradoxes, which in turn beget radical reconceptions and proposals for reform. The theoretical radicals argue that the law needs some basic reconception such as recognizing the aim of legal proof as not at all a search for truth but rather the production of an acceptable result, or that the law needs some shattering reform such as greatly heightening the civil standard of proof on each part of the case to ensure a more-likely …
Trial By Numbers, Rebecca K. Helm, Valerie P. Hans, Valerie F. Reyna
Trial By Numbers, Rebecca K. Helm, Valerie P. Hans, Valerie F. Reyna
Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy
Legal cases often require jurors to use numerical information. They may need to evaluate the meaning of specific numbers, such as the probability of match between a suspect and a DNA sample, or they may need to arrive at a sound numerical judgment, such as a money damage award. Thus, it is important to know how jurors understand numerical information, and what steps can be taken to increase juror comprehension and appropriate application of numerical evidence. In this Article, we examine two types of juror decisions involving numbers--decisions in which jurors must convert numbers into meaning (such as by understanding …
Cross-Examination, College Sexual-Assault Adjudications, And The Opportunity For Tuning Up The "Greatest Legal Engine Ever Invented", H. Hunter Bruton
Cross-Examination, College Sexual-Assault Adjudications, And The Opportunity For Tuning Up The "Greatest Legal Engine Ever Invented", H. Hunter Bruton
Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy
With its reputation as the "greatest legal engine ever invented" cross-examination rarely receives critical evaluation. This Article seeks to narrow that academic gap and offer pragmatic advice to policymakers and judges considering the in-the-trenches issues of cross-examination. Despite a great body of empirical and interdisciplinary work on cross-examination, legal scholarship often relegates discussion of cross-examination's benefits and costs to an errant footnote or a short paragraph. But cross-examination's efficacy should not be an afterthought or aside to doctrinal exegesis. Answers to the hardest questions about the presence, scope, and format of cross-examination rely on assumptions about the benefits and costs …