Law Commons^™

Environmental Evidence, Seema Kakade

Faculty Scholarship

The voices of impacted people are some of the most important when trying to make improvements to social justice in a variety of contexts, including, criminal policing, housing, and health care. After all, the people with on the ground experience know what is likely to truly effectuate change in their community, and what is not. Yet, such lived experience is also often significantly lacking and undermined in law and policy. People with lived experience tend to be seen as both community experts with valuable knowledge, as well as non-experts with little valuable knowledge. This Article explores the lived experience with …

Provisional Measures In Aid Of Arbitration, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

The success of the New York Convention has made arbitration a preferred means of dispute resolution for international commercial transactions. Success in arbitration often depends on the extent to which a party may secure assets, evidence, or the status quo between parties prior to the completion of the arbitration process. This makes the availability of provisional measures granted by either arbitral tribunals or by courts fundamental to the arbitration. In this Article, I consider the existing legal framework for provisional measures in aid of arbitration, with particular attention to the sources of the rules providing for such measures. Those sources …

Limiting Limited Liability: Requiring More Than Mere Subsequence Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 407, Cynara Hermes Mcquillan

Scholarly Works

Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the “Subsequent Remedial Measures” Rule, is troubling. This exclusionary rule of evidence prohibits using subsequent remedial measures to demonstrate negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect. But, other than in the title of the rule, the phrase “subsequent remedial measures” does not appear anywhere in the rule’s text and the rule itself does not expressly define what measures fall within its purview. This omission creates space for different judicial interpretations of the rule’s language and ultimately disparate judicial outcomes. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence lend themselves to fact-specific inquiries that can lead …

Artificial Justice: The Quandary Of Ai In The Courtroom, Paul W. Grimm, Maura R. Grossman, Sabine Gless, Mireille Hildebrandt

Judicature International

No abstract provided.

Brown (Larry) V. State Of Nevada, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 23, 2022), Anne-Greyson Long

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In this appeal, the Court considered whether a jury may consider footwear impression evidence without the aid of expert testimony. The Court determined it was proper here. The Court also considered whether the district court violated the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause by allowing a witness to testify via a two-way video and limiting cross-examination to protect proprietary trade secrets. The Court determined that the district court failed to make express findings under Lipitz. The Court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting witness testimony. No reversal was granted, and the court …

Technology - Revealing Or Framing The Truth? A Jurisprudential Debate, Dana Neacsu

Law Faculty Publications

Technology is so much more than a prosthetic. But how much more? And what else is it? In the legal realm, its role is not yet clear. Such a lack of elucidation becomes problematic, especially when technology has the ability to convert assumptions into facts, and it takes on a truth-making, rather than a mere truth-revealing mission. This Article argues that it is problematic to enable technology to stand in for reflective thinking, and calls attention to the fact that evidentiary rules enable technology to decide what can be proven, ergo what truth is. Technology is a fork in the …

Demystifying Mindreading For The Law, Teneille R. Brown

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

To lawyers, mindreading conjures up flamboyant images of crystal balls or charlatans. However, it is a deeply serious endeavor for the law. The primary role of fact-finders in civil, criminal, and administrative trials in the United States is to serve as highly-regulated mind readers—to listen to the testimony and decide whether the witnesses are credible and telling the truth. Because it can be so easily biased, we must directly acknowledge how jurors and judges (in addition to voters and employers) automatically and imperfectly read minds. We must remove the “mystique of mindreading,” and see how ordinary assessments of mental states …

#Wetoo, Kimberly Kessler Ferzan

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law

The #MeToo movement has caused a widespread cultural reckoning over sexual violence, abuse, and harassment. “Me too” was meant to express and symbolize that each individual victim was not alone in their experiences of sexual harm; they added their voice to others who had faced similar injustices. But viewing the #MeToo movement as a collection of singular voices fails to appreciate that the cases that filled our popular discourse were not cases of individual victims coming forward. Rather, case after case involved multiple victims, typically women, accusing single perpetrators. Victims were believed because there was both safety and strength in …

Path To Publication: A Peer Mentorship Model For Student-Lead Surgical Research, Usama Waqar, Hareem Rauf, Muskaan Abdul Qadir, Hina Inam

Medical College Documents

Early and sustained involvement in research is imperative for medical students to ensure better career prospects in addition to provision of high-quality, evidence-based care to patients. However, involvement of students in surgical research still remains limited, owing to inadequate research training. The current paper was planned to describe the structure of the "Path to Publication" series, incorporating peer mentorship with capacity-building research workshops for medical students. A total of 25 students were grouped into 8 surgical subspecialty groups to conduct research, supervised by experienced student research and faculty mentors. In addition, a series of research workshops were organized in synchronization …

Duty To Impair: Failure To Adopt The Federal Rules Of Evidence Allows The Va To Rely On Incompetent Examiners And Inadequate Medical Examinations, 90 Umkc L. Rev. 511 (2022), Yelena Duterte

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Criminal Justice Secrets, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The American criminal justice system is cloaked in secrecy. The government employs covert surveillance operations. Grand-jury proceedings are hidden from public view. Prosecutors engage in closed-door plea-bargaining and bury exculpatory evidence. Juries convict defendants on secret evidence. Jury deliberations are a black box. And jails and prisons implement clandestine punishment practices. Although there are some justifications for this secrecy, the ubiquitous nature of it is contrary to this nation’s Founders’ steadfast belief in the transparency of criminal justice proceedings. Further, the pervasiveness of secrecy within today’s criminal justice system raises serious constitutional concerns. The accumulation of secrecy and the aggregation …

Liberty And Justice For All?: A Pathfinder On The Use Of Lyrics As Evidence In Civil And Criminal Trial, Stephanie Washington

Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers

No abstract provided.

Critical Review Of The Use Of The Rorschach In European Courts, Igor Areh, Fanny Verkampt, Alfred Allan

Research outputs 2014 to 2021

In relation to the admissibility of evidence obtained using projective personality tests arose in F v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatam (2018). The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that an expert’s report can only be accepted if it is based on the international scientific community’s standards, but has refrained from stipulating what these standards are. It appears timely for European psychologists to decide what standards should be applied to determine whether or not a test is appropriate for psycholegal use. We propose standards and then apply them to the Rorschach because it was used in this case …

The Prosecutor In The Mirror: Conviction Integrity Units And Brady Claims, Lissa Griffin, Daisy Mason

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor has a due process obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence that is material to guilt or punishment. The failure to fulfill this duty is particularly insidious because it bears directly on both whether an innocent defendant may have been convicted as well as on whether the adjudicatory process was fair. The failure to disclose exculpatory evidence has been characterized as “epidemic” and has been documented to have made a major, outsized contribution in cases that resulted in exonerations. It is not surprising, then, that conviction integrity units in prosecutor’s offices …

The Consensus Rule: A New Approach To Scientific Evidence, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Founded on good intentions but unrealistic expectations, the dominant Daubert framework for handling expert and scientific evidence should be scrapped. Daubert asks judges and jurors to make substantively expert determinations, a task they are epistemically incompetent to perform as laypersons. As an alternative, this Article proposes a new framework for handling expert evidence. It draws from the social and philosophical literature on expertise and begins with a basic question: How can laypersons make intelligent decisions about expert topics? From there, it builds its evidentiary approach, which ultimately results in an inference rule focused on expert communities. Specifically, when dealing with …

Requiring What’S Not Required: Circuit Courts Are Disregarding Supreme Court Precedent And Revisiting Officer Inadvertence In Cyberlaw Cases, Michelle Zakarin

Scholarly Works

As the age of technology has taken this country by surprise and left us with an inability to formally prepare our legal system to incorporate these advances, many courts are forced to adapt by applying pre-technology rules to new technological scenarios. One illustration is the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment. Recently, the issue of officer inadvertence at the time of the search, a rule that the United States Supreme Court has specifically stated is not required in plain view inquiries, has been revisited in cyber law cases. It could be said that the courts interested in the existence …

One Step Backward: The Ninth Circuit's Unfortunate Rule 404(B) Decision In United States V. Lague, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

The federal courts' current approach to character evidence is widely recognized as problematic. Although Rule 404(b)(1) categorically prohibits the use of character evidence, Rule 404(b)(2) presents a list of examples of permitted purposes that has tempted courts to view the admission of other-acts evidence as proper so long as the evidence is merely relevant to a non-character purpose. Additionally, courts have misconstrued the inclusive structure of Rule 404(b) as creating a presumption

in favor of admissibility. Recent efforts to correct this mistakenly permissive view include decisions by several of the federal circuit courts of appeals recognizing that Rule 404(b) requires …

The Entity Attorney-Client Privilege Meets The Twenty-First Century: Rethinking Functional Equivalent Analysis In The Time Of A Nonemployee Workforce., Grace M. Giesel

Faculty Scholarship

Courts have struggled with whether an entity’s attorney-client privilege can protect communications between the entity’s lawyer and a nonemployee who has information the entity’s lawyer needs to best advise the entity. The nonemployee might be a former employee. But increasingly in recent times, the nonemployee is an individual who was never an entity employee. Corporations and other entities have incorporated nonemployees in their economic enterprises in all sorts of roles—roles employees may have held in the past. Many courts have accepted that the privilege can apply to communications involving former employees.

When faced with nonemployees who are not former employees, …

L’Utilité Du Droit Comparé (The Utility Of Comparative Law), Vivian Grosswald Curran

Book Chapters

French Abstract: Cette contribution était le discours d’ouverture à la Conférence des 100 ans de l’Institut Édouard Lambert à l’Université de Lyon. Elle discute de l’utilité du droit comparé dans le monde actuel d’une perspective technique dans le cadre d’une situation aux États-Unis et d’une perspective plus politique dans le cadre d’un arrêt de la CJUE.

English Abstract: This essay was delivered as a keynote address to the conference to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Institut Édouard Lambert at the University of Lyon. It argues for the usefulness of comparative law in today’s world from a technical angle in …

Proving Copying, Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Peter S. Menell

Faculty Scholarship

Proof that a defendant actually copied from a copyrighted work is a critical part of a claim for copyright infringement. Indeed, absent such copying, there is no infringement. The most common method of proving copying involves the use of circumstantial evidence, consisting of proof that a defendant had “access” to the protected work, and a showing of “similarities” between the copy and the protected work. In inferring copying from the combination of such evidence, courts have for many decades developed a framework known as the “inverse ratio rule,” which allows them to modulate the level of proof needed on access …

Evidentiary Inequality, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

Federal employment discrimination law is rife with evidentiary inequality. Courts allow employers to draw from a broad palette of evidence to defend against discrimination claims, while highly restricting the facts from which plaintiffs can prove their claims. This Article draws from hundreds of cases to show how judges favor the employer's evidence and disfavor the plaintiff's evidence across multiple dimensions, such as time, witnesses, documents, relevance, and reliability. Judges have created a host of named doctrines that severely restrict the evidence plaintiffs are allowed to use to prove their discrimination claims. At the same time, a host of unnamed, and …

Issue Of False Amphetamine Field Test Positives Caused By Sugar. Use Of Baeyer Test As A Secondary Test Solution., Reed A. Knutson, Jennah Duncan, Kara Peightal, Samuel Thomas

Student Research Projects, Dissertations, and Theses - Chemistry Department

The Marquis reagent is a well-established and widely used chemical presumptive test for 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and methamphetamine. It is composed of concentrated sulfuric acid and 40% formaldehyde, which act upon alkaloids causing them to complex into larger molecules. This complexation causes a color change that can be visually interpreted as a positive or negative result. Almost any sugar molecule can be complexed in this way as well, due to their many OH groups. Experimentally it was found that the sugar molecules did complex with one another when the Marquis test was administered. The color produced by this reaction was brownish-red. …

The Modest Impact Of The Modern Confrontation Clause, Jeffrey Bellin, Diana Bibb

Faculty Publications

The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause grants criminal defendants the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against" them. A strict reading of this text would transform the criminal justice landscape by prohibiting the prosecution's use of hearsay at trial. But until recently, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Clause was closer to the opposite. By tying the confrontation right to traditional hearsay exceptions, the Court's longstanding precedents granted prosecutors broad freedom to use out-of-court statements to convict criminal defendants.

The Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington was supposed to change all that. By severing the link between the …

Minding Accidents, Teneille R. Brown

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Tort doctrine states that breach is all about conduct. Unlike in the criminal law, where jurors must engage in an amateur form of mindreading to evaluate mens rea, jurors are told that they can assess civil negligence by looking only at how the defendant behaved. But this is false. Foreseeability is at the heart of negligence—appearing as the primary tests for duty, breach, and proximate cause. And yet, we cannot ask whether a defendant should have foreseen a risk without interrogating what he subjectively knew, remembered, perceived, or realized at the time. In fact, the focus on actions in negligence …

Antitrust Harm And Causation, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law

How should plaintiffs show harm from antitrust violations? The inquiry naturally breaks into two issues: first, what is the nature of the harm? and second, what does proof of causation require? The best criterion for assessing harm is likely or reasonably anticipated output effects. Antitrust’s goal should be output as high as is consistent with sustainable competition.

The standard for proof of causation then depends on two things: the identity of the enforcer and the remedy that the plaintiff is seeking. It does not necessarily depend on which antitrust statute the plaintiff is seeking to enforce. For public agencies, enforcement …

Servotronics, Inc. V. Rolls-Royce Plc And The Boeing Company: Brief Of Professor Yanbai Andrea Wang As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Yanbai Andrea Wang, Michael H. Mcginley

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law

Rather than expressing a view on the issues raised and ably briefed by the parties, amicus submits this brief to inform the Court of the scholarly research she has conducted regarding Section 1782 proceedings since this Court’s seminal decision in Intel. As Section 1782 applications have proliferated, the lower courts have struggled to apply the Intel factors as this Court had envisioned. Especially in the context of Section 1782 applications submitted by parties to an international proceeding (as opposed to those made by the international tribunal itself), lower courts have frequently found themselves unable to analyze and apply the …

Scientific Gerrymandering & Bifurcation, Katrina F. Kuh, Megan Edwards, Frederick A. Mcdonald

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Environmental litigation must often examine the propriety of corporate conduct in areas of scientific complexity. In the second generation of climate nuisance suits, for example, allegations of corporate participation in the climate disinformation campaign are woven into plaintiffs’ claims. Toxic tort suits, currently and most notably in the Roundup and PFAS litigation, present another area of environmental litigation grappling with the legal ramifications of alleged corporate deception about scientific information. Toxic tort suits often surface allegations, and in many cases disturbing evidence, of what we term corporate “scientific gerrymandering”— corporate efforts to finesse, slow, or even mislead scientific understanding of …

Recollections Refreshed And Recorded, Len Niehoff

Articles

Witnesses forget stuff. When they do, the evidence rules give us two tools to help solve the problem. Lawyers call one "refreshed recollection" and the other "past recollection recorded," labels just similar enough to guarantee confusion. Nevertheless, these principles get at very different things and are well worth the effort necessary to distinguish and understand them. So how do we get there?

Do You See What I See? The Science Behind Utah Rule Of Evidence 617, Louisa Heiny

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Eyewitness identifications play a key role in many investigations and are often central to a prosecutor’s case. At the same time, eyewitness identifications can be tainted, accidentally or purposely, thus tainting the justice system as well. There are myriad reasons for this phenomenon, but the primary responsibility lies not with the witness, but rather a system that fails to recognize, and often amplifies, mistakes and assumptions in the identification process.

Know Every Document And Piece Of Evidence In Your File, Rachel Brockl

Publications

Knowing every document and piece of evidence in your case file is imperative to competent preparation of your case. While this may sound obvious, many attorneys fail to follow this advisement to their own peril. The reasons for knowing your case file in and out are threefold: (1) you want to be the case master, (2) you do not want to be caught off-guard, and (3) your reputation is on the line.