Law Commons^™

Judges Should Be Discerning Consensus, Not Evaluating Scientific Expertise, David S. Caudill, Harry Collins, Robert Evans

University of Cincinnati Law Review

One of the most constructive critiques of the Daubert admissibility regime is Professor Edward Cheng’s recent proposal for a new Consensus Rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rejecting the notion that judges and juries have the capacity to evaluate scientific expertise, Cheng’s proposal would eliminate Daubert hearings—and judicial gatekeeping concerning expert testimony—and require judges and juries, in their verdicts, to follow consensus in the relevant scientific community. Significantly, Cheng argues that judges and juries would have an easier time identifying consensus than they have in deciding between experts who disagree.

We find Cheng’s emphasis on consensus compelling, and …

How Machines Reveal The Gaps In Evidence Law, Andrea Roth -- Barry Tarlow Chancellor's Chair In Criminal Justice And Professor Of Law

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Symposium asks participants to reimagine the Federal Rules of Evidence on the fiftieth anniversary of their effective date. As part of that conversation, this short Essay argues that the Rules of Evidence contain critical gaps in terms of empowering litigants to meaningfully challenge the credibility of evidence. Specifically, the increasing use of machine-generated proof has made clear that evidence law does not offer sufficiently meaningful opportunities to scrutinize conveyances of information whose flaws cannot be exposed through cross-examination. These underscrutinized conveyances include machine-generated output, information conveyed by animals, and statements made by absent hearsay declarants. Even for some witnesses …

Introduction, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law Review

Prior to the eighteenth century, cartographers would often fill uncharted areas of maps with sea monsters, other artwork, or even rank speculation-a phenomenon labeled "horror vacui," or fear of empty spaces. For example, in Paolo Forlani's world map of 1565, a yet- to-be-discovered southern continent was depicted with anticipated mountain chains and animals. The possible explanations for horror vacui are varied, but one reason may have been a desire "to hide [the mapmakers'] ignorance." Not until "maps began to be thought of as more purely scientific instruments . . . [did] cartographers . . . restrain their concern about spaces …

One Size Does Not Fit All: Alternatives To The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Henry Zhuhao Wang

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence have been so successful that many people equate them to the whole field of evidence law. But this is a false equivalence. Our world is complicated, diversified, and dynamic. So, too, is evidence law, which is like a rainforest in which the Federal Rules are simply the largest tree, not a forest unto themselves. In fact, the Federal Rules of Evidence are limited in their applicability due to three fundamental assumptions: the presence of a jury trial, an adversarial process, and witness oral testimony. The universe of dispute resolution, however, extends far beyond a contour …

Binding Hercules: A Proposal For Bench Trials, Maggie Wittlin -- Associate Professor

Vanderbilt Law Review

If you were a federal judge presiding over a bench trial, you probably would not want the Federal Rules of Evidence to apply to you. Sure, you might want to be insulated from privileged information. But you are, no doubt, capable of cool-headed, rational reasoning, and you have a realistic understanding of how the world works; if you got evidence that was unreliable or easy to overvalue, you could handle it appropriately. But surely, you would have the same desire if you were a juror--it is not your position as a judge that makes you want all the relevant evidence. …

The Superfluous Rules Of Evidence, Jeffrey Bellin -- Professor Of Law

Vanderbilt Law Review

There are few American legal codifications as successful as the Federal Rules of Evidence. But this success masks the project's uncertain beginnings. The drafters of the Federal Rules worried that lawmakers would not adopt the new rules and that judges would not follow them. As a result, they included at least thirty rules of evidence that do not, in fact, alter the admissibility of evidence. Instead, these rules: (1) market the rules project, and (2) guide judges away from anticipated errors in applying the (other) nonsuperfluous rules.

Given the superfluous rules' covert mission, it should not be surprising that the …

Evidence-Based Hearsay, Justin Sevier -- Professor Of Litigation

Vanderbilt Law Review

The hearsay rule initially appears straightforward and sensible. It forbids witnesses from repeating secondhand, untested gossip in court, and who among us prefers to resolve legal disputes through untested gossip? Nonetheless, the rule's unpopularity in the legal profession is well-known and far-reaching. It is almost cliche to say that the rule confounds law students, confuses practicing attorneys, and vexes trial judges, who routinely make incorrect calls at trial with respect to hearsay admissibility. The rule fares no better in the halls of legal academia. Although defenses exist, scholars have unleashed a parade of pejoratives at the rule over the years, …

A New Baseline For Character Evidence, Julia Simon-Kerr -- Professor Of Law

Vanderbilt Law Review

Perhaps no rules of evidence are as contested as the rules governing character evidence. To ward off the danger of a fact finder's mistaking evidence of character for evidence of action, the rules exclude much contextual information about the people at the center of the proceeding. This prohibition on character propensity evidence is a bedrock principle of American law. Yet despite its centrality, it is uncertain of both content and application. Contributing to this uncertainty is a definitional lacuna. Although a logical first question in thinking about character evidence is how to define it, the Federal Rules of Evidence have …

Shifting The Male Gaze Of Evidence, Teneille R. Brown Professor Of Law And Associate Dean

Vanderbilt Law Review

Rationality is deeply embedded in both the Rules themselves and the ways they are interpreted. David Leonard stated that rationality "lies at the heart of modern evidentiary principles" because relevance itself is "grounded in rationality." Of the many reasons we have evidence rules-to streamline trials, foster legitimacy and predictability, and promote due process-encouraging "rational fact- finding" is often at the top of this list.

In contemporary evidence law the hegemonic goal-of-rationality is "often taken for granted" and can be traced "from Bentham through Wigmore to the present day." It is a "remarkably homogeneous" view that has "dominated legal scholarship for …

The Federal Rules Of Emojis: A Proposed Framework For Handling Emoji Evidence In Trial Contexts, Marilyn Hurzeler

Fordham Law Review

Emojis are 3,633 ubiquitous symbols-as-communication used by 92 percent of internet users. These tiny yet influential pieces of evidence hold the power to complete, enhance, mitigate, and flip the meaning of surrounding text. Consequently, court references to emojis have grown exponentially in the last five years. As emojis have become a cornerstone of digital discourse, courts have increasingly encountered the significant impact of emojis on parties’ legal claims. A guide for handling of emoji evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), therefore, is important to afford proper treatment to this relatively new evidentiary form.

This Note discusses how the …

(Partial) Clarity: Eliminating The Confusion About The Regulation Of The "Fact"Ual Bases For Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Edward J. Imwinkelried

William & Mary Law Review

Expert testimony is offered at the vast majority of trials in courts of general jurisdiction in the United States. Federal Rules of Evidence 702-06 govern the admissibility of such testimony. In its May 15, 2021, report accompanying the most recent proposed amendment to Rule 702, the Advisory Committee on the Evidence Rules asserts that “many courts” have misapplied Rule 702 by holding that questions as to whether “the expert has relied on sufficient facts or data ... are questions of weight and not admissibility.” Rule 702(b) states that to be admissible, an expert opinion must be “based on sufficient fact …

"The" Rule: Modernizing The Potent, But Overlooked, Rule Of Witness Sequestration, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Starting with its illustration in the Apocrypha and continuing into the modern day both in courtrooms and in ubiquitous criminal procedurals, one evidence rule has proven so powerful that it has become known as “THE” Rule of Evidence. The rule of witness sequestration demands that multiple witnesses to the same events be examined separately from one another to prevent them from, consciously or subconsciously, tailoring their testimony to ensure that it remains consistent. Witness sequestration is conceptually simplistic and famously mighty. Yet, this bedrock protection against inaccurate trial testimony is imperiled by conflicting interpretations of Federal Rule of Evidence 615, …

The Liar’S Mark: Character And Forfeiture In Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), Jesse Schupack

Michigan Law Review

Rule 609(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is an outlier. The Rule mandates admission of impeaching evidence of a witness’s past convictions for crimes of dishonesty. It is the only place in the Rules where judges are denied their usual discretion to exclude evidence on the grounds that its admission would be more prejudicial than probative. This Note analyzes three assumptions underlying this unusual Rule: (1) that there is a coherently definable category of crimes of dishonesty, (2) that convictions for crimes of dishonesty are uniquely probative of a person’s character, and (3) that an assessment of moral character …

The Threat Of Deepfakes In Litigation: Raising The Authentication Bar To Combat Falsehood, Agnieszka Mcpeak

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Deepfakes are all over the internet—from shape-shifting comedians and incoherent politicians to disturbingly realistic fake pornography. Emerging technology makes it easier than ever to create a convincing deepfake. What used to take significant time and money to develop is now widely available, often for free, thanks to rapid advances in deepfake technology.

Deepfakes threaten individual rights and even democracy. But their impact on litigation should not be overlooked. The US adversarial system of justice is built on a foundation of seeking out the truth to arrive at a just result. The Federal Rules of Evidence serve as an important framework …

Restoring The Presumption Of Innocence: Protecting A Defendant’S Right To A Fair Trial By Closing The Door On 404(B) Evidence, Aaron Diaz

St. Mary's Law Journal

Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence to govern evidentiary procedures and “eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.” In criminal cases, for example, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) seeks to prevent prosecutors from improperly introducing a defendant’s past misdeeds. Nevertheless, prosecutors often attempt to introduce a defendant’s past misconduct to suggest that a defendant has a propensity to commit crimes, which is improper character evidence. Unsurprisingly, 404(b) is one of the most litigated evidence rules and has generated more published opinions than any other subsections of the Rules. And despite efforts to amend Rule 404(b), the rule has remained virtually untouched. …

"Against The Defendant": Plea Rule's Purpose V. Plain Meaning, Nick Bell

Arkansas Law Review

Rarely is there a proverbial “smoking gun” in criminal prosecutions. Instead, prosecutors and defense attorneys must tell juries competing stories—largely from circumstantial evidence—and allow jurors to determine what happened based on inferences gleaned from argument and testimony. Naturally, this creates substantial uncertainty for both prosecutors and defendants. Instead of rolling the dice at trial, the vast majority of criminal matters are resolved through plea bargaining. Plea bargaining provides both sides with a certainty otherwise unobtainable through a traditional trial. The prosecution guarantees itself a conviction, and the defendant will often receive a lighter sentence than if he or she had …

Does Impeachment By Conviction Create Undue Prejudice? An Experiment And An Analysis, David Crump

Akron Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence, and rules in the States, allow for impeachment of the testimony of a witness by proof of the witness's criminal convictions. If the witness is the criminal defendant, however, there are restrictions on this kind of impeachment. The theory is that the jury is supposed to use the evidence solely for impeachment and not to support an inference that the defendant has a propensity toward committing crimes. But intuition tells us that the jury is likely to be influenced toward the prohibited inference of guilt of the crime charged rather than devaluation of credibility alone. …

Blatantly Biased: Expanding Pena-Rodriguez To Cases Of Bias Against Sexual Orientation, Religion, And Sex, Tressa Bussio

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

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 …

Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

The (Mis)Application Of Rule 404(B) Heuristics, Dora W. Klein

University of Miami Law Review

In all of the federal circuit courts of appeals, application of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has been distorted by judicially-created “tests” that, while intended to assist trial courts in properly admitting or excluding evidence, do not actually test for the kind of evidence prohibited by this rule. Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of “crimes, wrongs, or other acts” if the purpose for admitting the evidence is to prove action in accordance with a character trait. This evidence is commonly referred to as “propensity” evidence, or “once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer” evidence.

This Article examines …

Diamonds In The Rough: A Review Of Tiffany V. Costco And A Call To Apply Daubert To The Admissibility Of Consumer Survey Evidence In Trademark Infringement Litigation, Michael J. Borger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cabining Judicial Discretion Over Forensic Evidence With A New Special Relevance Rule, Emma F.E. Shoucair

Michigan Law Review

Modern forensic evidence suffers from a number of flaws, including insufficient scientific grounding, exaggerated testimony, lack of uniform best practices, and an inefficacious standard for admission that regularly allows judges to admit scientifically unsound evidence. This Note discusses these problems, lays out the current landscape of forensic science reform, and suggests the addition of a new special relevance rule to the Federal Rules of Evidence (and similar rules in state evidence codes). This proposed rule would cabin judicial discretion to admit non-DNA forensic evidence by barring prosecutorial introduction of such evidence in criminal trials absent a competing defense expert or …

Face-To-Face With Facial Recognition Evidence: Admissibility Under The Post-Crawford Confrontation Clause, Joseph Clarke Celentino

Michigan Law Review

In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court announced a major change in Confrontation Clause doctrine, abandoning a decades-old framework that focused on the common law principles of hearsay analysis: necessity and reliability. The new doctrine, grounded in an originalist interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, requires courts to determine whether a particular statement is testimonial. But the Court has struggled to present a coherent definition of the term testimonial. In its subsequent decisions, the Court illustrated that its new Confrontation Clause doctrine could be used to bar forensic evidence, including laboratory test results, if the government failed to produce the …

Defending Daubert: It's Time To Amend Federal Rule Of Evidence 702, David E. Bernstein, Eric G. Lasker

William & Mary Law Review

The 2000 amendments to Rule 702 sought to resolve the debate that had emerged in the courts in the 1990s over the proper meaning of Daubert by codifying the rigorous and structured approach to expert admissibility announced in the Daubert trilogy. Fifteen years later, however, the amendments have only partially accomplished this objective. Many courts continue to resist the judiciary’s proper gatekeeping role, either by ignoring Rule 702’s mandate altogether or by aggressively reinterpreting the Rule’s provisions.

Informed by this additional history of recalcitrance, the time has come for the Judicial Conference to return to the drafting table and finish …

Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer

Michigan Law Review

Against the backdrop of escalating state efforts to decriminalize marijuana, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices continue to bring drug-trafficking prosecutions against defendants carrying small amounts of marijuana that are permitted under state law. Federal district courts have repeatedly barred defendants from introducing evidence that they possessed this marijuana for their own personal use. This Note argues that district courts should not exclude three increasingly common kinds of “personal use evidence” under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 when that evidence is offered to negate intent to distribute marijuana. Three types of personal use evidence are discussed in this Note: (1) a …

A Prosecutor's Guide To Character Evidence: When Is Uncharged Possession Evidence Probative Of A Defendant's Intent To Distribute?, James Decleene

Marquette Law Review

none

Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Since 1975, Rule 613(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has governed the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement in federal court. Rule 613(b) requires the proponent of the prior inconsistent statement to provide the declarant an opportunity to explain or deny it. There is no requirement that the proponent provide that opportunity at any particular time or in any particular sequence. Rule 613 reflected a change from the common law that had fallen out of fashion in the federal courts. That common law rule, known as the Rule in Queen Caroline’s Case, required the proponent of …

Rule 408: Maintaining The Sheild For Negotiation In Federal And Bankruptcy Courts, Leslie T. Gladstone

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admissions Online: Statements Of A Party Opponent In The Internet Age, Dylan Charles Edwards

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.