Law Commons^™

"Pics Or It Didn't Happen" And "Show Me The Receipts": A Folk Evidentiary Rule, Timothy Lau

Vanderbilt Law Review

"Pics or It Didn't Happen," "Show Me the Receipts," and related refrains are frequently encountered in online discussion threads today. They are typically invoked to demand corroboration in support of a claim or to declare from the outset that a claim is supported by some sort of proof In many ways, they are the functional counterpart of legal evidentiary objections in online discussions. They embody a folk evidentiary rule, democratically and organically developed by the people.

The topic of "Pics or It Didn't Happen" is much broader than can be covered in a symposium piece. As such, this Article seeks …

How Florida’S Courts Should Evaluate The Admissibility Of Field Sobriety Testing And Blood Thc Levels Evidence In Marijuana Impaired Driving Prosecutions, Christopher Bomhoff

FIU Law Review

Field sobriety and blood alcohol concentration tests are proven reliable techniques to determine whether a person us under the influence of alcohol. No such technique has been developed to reliably determine whether a person is under the influence of marijuana. However, despite a lack of scientific consensus regarding the reliability of field sobriety and blood toxicology tests to determine marijuana impairment, these methods are routinely used as evidence of guilt in marijuana impaired driving prosecutions. Twenty-four states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and Florida appears to be set to join them in the near future. As a result …

Having Your Cake And Eating It, Too: Using Special Masters In Daubert Hearings To Promote Scientific Analyses Of Expert Testimony, Luis Balart

Louisiana Law Review

The article discusses issues on the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal court trials in the U.S., and the use by judges of court-appointed experts and advisors to help in making evidentiary decisions requiring technical or scientific knowledge.

Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley

Michigan Law Review

Circuit courts are split on whether and to what extent the Daubert standard should apply at class certification. Potential plaintiffs believe that application of Daubert would make it nearly impossible to obtain class certification. For potential defendants, the application of the standard is an important way to ensure that the certification process is fair. This Note examines the incentives underlying the push to apply the Daubert standard at class certification and the benefits and drawbacks associated with that proposal. It proposes a solution that balances the concerns of both plaintiffs and defendants by focusing on three factors: the obstacles to …

The "Damned" In A Flashover State: Arson And The Use Of Scientific Methods And Expert Testimony In West Virginia, Christopher W. Maidona

West Virginia Law Review Online

The fire moved quickly through the house as Cameron Todd Willingham screamed for his children from the front porch. Inside the blaze were his three children. Firefighters arrived, uncoiled hoses, and aimed water at the raging fire. However, all three Willingham children died that night from smoke inhalation.

News of the December 23, 1991, tragedy spread throughout Corsicana, Texas. Meanwhile, investigators sought to determine what caused the fire. The investigators “toured the perimeter of the house, taking notes and photographs, like archeologists mapping out a ruin.” In the kitchen, they found smoke and heat damage—signs the fire had not originated …

Reliability Of Expert Evidence In International Disputes, Matthew W. Swinehart

Michigan Journal of International Law

Part I of this article traces the historical trends in the use of expert evidence in international disputes, from the scattered reliance on experts in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to the ubiquity of experts in modern disputes. With that perspective, Part II examines how decision makers have attempted to ensure reliability of the expert evidence that is flooding the evidentiary records of international disputes, while Part III outlines the many problems that still remain. Finally, Part IV proposes a non-exhaustive and nonbinding checklist of questions for analyzing the reliability of any type of expert evidence.

The Increasing Use Of Challenges To Expert Evidence Under Daubert And Rule 702 In Patent Litigation, Douglas G. Smith

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

A Simple Theory Of Complex Valuation, Anthony J. Casey, Julia Simon-Kerr

Michigan Law Review

Complex valuations of assets, companies, government programs, damages, and the like cannot be done without expertise, yet judges routinely pick an arbitrary value that falls somewhere between the extreme numbers suggested by competing experts. This creates costly uncertainty and undermines the legitimacy of the court. Proposals to remedy this well-recognized difficulty have become increasingly convoluted. As a result, no solution has been effectively adopted and the problem persists. This Article suggests that the valuation dilemma stems from a misconception of the inquiry involved. Courts have treated valuation as its own special type of inquiry distinct from traditional fact-finding. We show …

Adaptation And The Courtroom: Judging Climate Science, Kirsten Engel, Jonathan Overpeck

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Climate science is increasingly showing up in courtroom disputes over the duty to adapt to climate change. While judges play a critical role in evaluating scientific evidence, they are not apt to be familiar with the basic methods of climate science nor with the role played by peer review, publication, and training of climate scientists. This Article is an attempt to educate the bench and the bar on the basics of the discipline of climate science, which we contend is a distinct scientific discipline. We propose a series of principles to guide a judge’s evaluation of the reliability and weight …

Raising The Standard For Expert Testimony: An Unwarranted Obstacle In Proving Claims Of Child Sexual Abuse In Dependency Hearings, Matthew J. Dulka

Golden Gate University Law Review

This comment will examine the Amber B. court's decision to characterize evidence provided by the mental health professionals as scientific evidence and not as expert opinion. Secondly, this comment will explore the desirability of imposing the scientific evidence standard, usually applied in criminal cases, to dependency hearings. Finally, this comment will discuss the implications of the Amber B. decision in light of the already present evidentiary difficulties of proving child sexual abuse claims and the social policy of protecting the welfare of the abused child.

Can A Jury Believe My Eyes, And Should Courts Let Experts Tell Them Why Not? The Admissibility Of Expert Testimony On Cross-Racial Eyewitness Identification In New York After People V. Young, Jody E. Frampton

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers.

Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng

Michigan Law Review

For over twenty years, and particularly since the Supreme Court's Daubert decision in 1993, much ink has been spilled debating the problem of scientific evidence in the courts. Are jurors or, in the alternative, judges qualified to assess scientific reliability? Do courts really need to be concerned about "junk science"? What mechanisms can promote better decision making in scientific cases? Even a cursory scan of the literature shows the recent explosion of interest in these issues, precipitating new treatises, hundreds of articles, and countless conferences for judges, practitioners, and academics. To this literature, Professor Tal Golan adds Laws of Men …

A Three-Dimensional Model For The Use Of Expert Psychiatric And Psychological Evidence In False Confession Defenses Before The Trier Of Fact, Major Joshua E. Kastenberg

Seattle University Law Review

Part I of this Article delineates a defendant's right to present voluntariness and credibility evidence against his or her confession. This section analyzes the basic constitutional framework of how a defendant can present this evidence and describes the traditional safeguards against false confessions. This background information provides a context for the overarching issue of expert testimony admissibility. Part II provides a basic understanding of differences between the psychiatric (medical model) and psychological (social model) approach to false confessions. It then examines the types of false confession defenses used by defendants and the interrogation techniques challenged by defendants. Part III reviews …

Admitting Expert Testimony In Federal Courts And Its Impact On West Virginia Jurisprudence, Robin Jean Davis

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Much Is Too Much? Rule 704(B) Opinions On Personal Use Vs. Intent To Distribute, Dana R. Hassin

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Recipe For Confusion: Congress And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Professor Daniel J. Capra

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony On Eyewitness Identification: Admissibility And Alternatives, Thomas Dillickrath

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Response To Professor Graham, Brett C. Powell

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Of Innocence Offered By The Criminal Defendant: "Not So Fast"; Response, Professor Kenneth W. Graham Jr.

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Response To Professor Graham, Thomas Dillickrath

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Response, Yvette J. Bessent

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Response, Dana R. Hassin

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Expert Witness Predicament: Determining "Reliable" Under The Gatekeeping Test Of Daubert, Kumho, And Proposed Amended Rule 702 Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael H. Graham

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Witnesses Under Rules 703 And 803(4) Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Separating The Wheat From The Chaff, L. Timothy Perrin

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Mental Health Experts On Trial: Free Will And Determinism In The Courtroom, Ronald J. Rychlak, Joseph F. Rychlak

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Proper Test For Assessing The Admissibility Of Nonscientific Expert Evidence Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 702, 1997 John M. Manos Writing Competition On Evidence , Peter B. Oh

Cleveland State Law Review

Courts have fashioned various common law standards to determine the admissibility of nonscientific expert evidence. This Article examines these different standards to evince the need for harmony. Part I of this article examines the admissibility tests for nonscientific expert evidence administered by federal courts before Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The first such test appears in Frye v. United States, which establishes only expert knowledge based on a method or principle that has gained sufficient "general acceptance" can be admitted. Part I concludes by discussing the problems that plague these different applied tests and beckon for a single standard. Part …

"Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics"? Psychological Syndrome Evidence In The Courtroom After Daubert, Krista L. Duncan

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.