Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- American Law Institute (2)
- Edmund M. Morgan (2)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (2)
- Legal progressivism (2)
- Legal reform (2)
-
- Michael Ariens (2)
- Model Code of Evidence (2)
- St. Mary's University School of Law (2)
- Uniform Rules of Evidence (2)
- ALI (1)
- Abuse of discretion (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- American Legal Realism (1)
- American legal history (1)
- American legal system law of evidence (1)
- American legal thought (1)
- Analytic philosophy (1)
- Analytic reasoning (1)
- Classical legal orthodoxy (1)
- Code of Evidence (1)
- Codification (1)
- Committee to Propose Specific Reforms in the Law of Evidence (1)
- Common law of evidence (1)
- Commonwealth Fund (1)
- Conceptualization (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Evidence Editorial Group (1)
- Evidence law (1)
- Evidence scholarship (1)
- Evidentiary reform (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Progress Is Our Only Product: Legal Reform And The Codification Of Evidence, Michael S. Ariens
Progress Is Our Only Product: Legal Reform And The Codification Of Evidence, Michael S. Ariens
Faculty Articles
Twentieth century reform of the American law of evidence was initially premised on the ideals of legal progressivism, ideals splintered by American legal realism. In preparing the American Law Institute's Model Code of Evidence from 1939 to 1942, Harvard Law School professor Edmund M. Morgan attempted to reconstitute the framework of reform in light of the challenge of legal realism. The Model Code was based on granting greater discretion to the trial judge and changing the goals of the trial from a search for truth to a "rational" resolution of disputes.
Morgan’s decision to emphasize the rational resolution of disputes …
The Law Of Evidence And The Idea Of Progress, Michael S. Ariens
The Law Of Evidence And The Idea Of Progress, Michael S. Ariens
Faculty Articles
To ask the question, “Does evidence law matter?,” is often to assume that some sets or groups of people believe it is important while others are challenging that view. However, another assumption regarding the nature of this question is possible—that the question is asked because legal academics believe that evidence law both does and does not matter, and that those academics also believe that these are irreconcilable beliefs. What is of particular interest is how legal academics reached this point and why they believe that evidence law both does and does not matter.
Consideration of these aspects of evidence law …
Speaking Of Rights, Janet Ainsworth
Speaking Of Rights, Janet Ainsworth
Faculty Articles
Professor Janet Ainsworth reviews Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse, by Mary Ann Glendon. The thesis of Mary Ann Glendon's book is a provocative one: that the way in which Americans talk about rights is dangerous to our political and social well-being as a nation. Professor Ainsworth explores the specifics of rights discourse that Glendon describes, and provides a thorough critique of Rights Talk.