Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Surprise Vs. Probability As A Metric For Proof, Edward K. Cheng, Matthew Ginther
Surprise Vs. Probability As A Metric For Proof, Edward K. Cheng, Matthew Ginther
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
In this Symposium issue celebrating his career, Professor Michael Risinger in Leveraging Surprise proposes using "the fundamental emotion of surprise" as a way of measuring belief for purposes of legal proof. More specifically, Professor Risinger argues that we should not conceive of the burden of proof in terms of probabilities such as 51%, 95%, or even "beyond a reasonable doubt." Rather, the legal system should reference the threshold using "words of estimative surprise" -asking jurors how surprised they would be if the fact in question were not true. Toward this goal (and being averse to cardinality), he suggests categories such …
Forensics, Chicken Soup, And Meteorites: A Tribute To Michael Risinger, Edward K. Cheng
Forensics, Chicken Soup, And Meteorites: A Tribute To Michael Risinger, Edward K. Cheng
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Michael Risinger's scholarship has had a profound impact on our field. And while his work has run the gamut in evidence law, I think it is clear that Michael's true love has always been expert evidence, and more specifically, forensics. So let me take a moment to revisit "an oldie but a goodie": his 1989 article entitled Exorcism of Ignorance as a Proxy for Rational Knowledge: The Lessons of Handwriting Identification "Expertise," published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and co-authored with Mark Denbeaux and Michael Saks.' For those of you who have not read the article, you should. …
When Discretion To Record Becomes Assertive: Body Camera Footage As Hearsay, Natalie P. Pike
When Discretion To Record Becomes Assertive: Body Camera Footage As Hearsay, Natalie P. Pike
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law
As police body camera footage pervades courtrooms across the country as evidence in criminal trials, courts must reevaluate whether, and under which evidentiary frameworks, they will admit the footage to prove that what the footage depicts is true. This Note analyzes the frameworks under which courts have historically admitted filmic evidence: namely, through authentication and as demonstrative evidence. It concludes that body camera footage is distinct from evidence traditionally admitted through those frameworks because body camera footage is akin to an officer's assertive statement--the officer has discretion to activate and aim the body camera. Courts should therefore exclude the footage …