Law Commons^™

The Unblinking Eye Turns To Appellate Law: Cameras In Trial Courtrooms And Their Effect On Appellate Law, Mary E. Adkins

UF Law Faculty Publications

Over the past twenty years, most American courthouses have been wired with audio and video recording equipment to enhance security and economize on court reporting costs. These in-house alterations have an overlooked consequence for appeals. The mere existence of these recordings of all courtroom occurrences will unavoidably change the way appeals are handled and reviewed.

Appellate courts will need to make new types of decisions on whether to accept the audio-video recordings as appellate records or continue the reliance on transcripts and items entered into evidence. If the appellate courts do not accept audio-video recordings as appellate records, or if …

An Unsettling Outcome: Why The Florida Supreme Court Was Wrong To Ban All Settlement Evidence In Saleeby V Rocky Elson Construction, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009), Michael L. Seigel, Robert J. Hauser, Allison D. Sirica

UF Law Faculty Publications

It is rare that a court as sophisticated as the Florida Supreme Court casually makes a fundamental mistake in an important area of the law. Unfortunately, Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Construction, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009) represents one of these unusual instances. The Court was faced with a simple question: may evidence pertaining to a prior settlement be offered at trial when it is relevant to something other than liability or the invalidity or amount of the pending claim. The universal answer under both federal law and the law of other states is yes, as long as …

Admissibility Of Co-Conspirator Statements In A Post-Crawford World, Michael L. Seigel, Daniel Weisman

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article takes the position that co-conspirator statements must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are testimonial and thus subject to exclusion under the Confrontation Clause. Further, in light of the fact that the author of the majority opinions in Crawford and Davis was Justice Antonin Scalia, this Article examines whether interpreting the Sixth Amendment as a bar to the admission of certain coconspirator statements would violate an originalist interpretation of that provision. The conclusion reached is that it would not. In the current era of ever-narrowing rights for criminal defendants, reaffirming the law's commitment to …

Economic Authority And The Limits Of Expertise In Antitrust Cases, John E. Lopatka, William H. Page

UF Law Faculty Publications

In antitrust litigation, the factual complexity and economic nature of the issues involved require the presentation of economic expert testimony in all but a few cases. This dependence on economics has increased in recent years because of the courts' narrowing of per se rules of illegality and the courts' expansion of certain areas of factual inquiry. At the same time, however, courts have limited the scope of allowable expert testimony through the methodological strictures of Daubert and its progeny and through heightened sufficiency requirements. In this Article, Professors Page and Lopatka make four important points about these judicially imposed constraints …

Effective Use Of War Stories In Teaching Evidence, Michael L. Seigel

UF Law Faculty Publications

There are many ways to teach any law course successfully, including Evidence. It can be approached from a very theoretical perspective or a very practical one. Some professors still use the tried and true case method, while others have moved more toward a problem-oriented approach. Others use movie clips to illustrate important points. A minority of professors have even adopted a NITA approach, essentially teaching Evidence through Trial Practice. This Essay does not advocate any particular method for teaching Evidence. It does take the position, however, that if an Evidence professor has some practical experience, he or she would be …

A Pragmatic Critique Of Modern Evidence Scholarship, Michael L. Seigel

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article contends that strict adherence to optimistic rationalism has blinded evidence scholars to the reality that the law of evidence is as indeterminate as all other areas of the law. At its core is not a single goal -- the attainment of truth -- but a number of important, complex, and, alas, competing considerations. Answers to questions concerning the appropriate configuration of evidence doctrine cannot be deduced from a unitary principle; indeed, they cannot be deduced at all. Rather, arguments about evidence doctrine must be conducted in the realm of "practical reason." Practical reason is the process through which …

Rationalizing Hearsay: A Proposal For A Best Evidence Hearsay Rule, Michael L. Seigel

UF Law Faculty Publications

The enterprise of this article is the theoretical construction of an optimal solution to the hearsay conundrum. Its first task is the elucidation of the premises upon which a rational hearsay rule can be built. Thus, the article starts by exploring the relationship between hearsay doctrine and the foundation of all rational truth-seeking enterprises, inductive logic. The article continues with an examination of the relationship between hearsay evidence and trial dynamics, for a workable rule must take into account the actual functioning of our adversary system.'" This two-pronged analysis leads to the proposal of a "best evidence hearsay rule."