Law Commons^™

Narrative, Truth, And Trial, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

This Article critically evaluates the relationship between constructing narratives and achieving factual accuracy at trials. The story model of adjudication— according to which jurors process testimony by organizing it into competing narratives—has gained wide acceptance in the descriptive work of social scientists and currency in the courtroom, but it has received little close attention from legal theorists. The Article begins with a discussion of the meaning of narrative and its function at trial. It argues that the story model is incomplete, and that “legal truth” emerges from a hybrid of narrative and other means of inquiry. As a result, trials …

The Confrontation Clause And The Hearsay Rule: What Hearsay Exceptions Are Testimonial?, Paul W. Grimm, Jerome E. Deise, John R. Grimm

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Special Threat Of Informants To The Innocent Who Are Not Innocents: Producing “First Drafts,” Recording Incentives, And Taking A Fresh Look At The Evidence, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

Fabricated testimony by informants often plays an important role in convictions of the innocent. In this article, I examine the particularly problematic situation of defendants who are innocent of the particular crime charged but are not strangers to crime. As to such defendants, potential informants abound among crime associates, and they have a ready story line that authorities are preconditioned to accept. Independent proof, which could be an antidote, will predictably be lacking. Indeed, that the informant has exclusive, critical knowledge often leads the prosecution to offer particularly tempting deals.

I focus on the case of Lee Wayne Hunt, a …

Rational Expectations Of Leniency: Implicit Plea Agreements And The Prosecutor’S Role As A Minister Of Justice, Eli Paul Mazur

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Applying Suggestibility Research To The Real World: The Case Of Repeated Questions, Thomas D. Lyon

Law and Contemporary Problems

One can discern two parallel trends in the law and the psychology of child witnesses. In the law, appellate courts are beginning to stem the once powerful movement to increase the acceptance of children's testimony and the admissibility of children's out-of-court statements. Lyon analyzes particular strands of each trend.

Child Witness Policy: Law Interfacing With Social Science, Dorothy F. Marsil, Jean Montoya, David Ross, Louise Graham

Law and Contemporary Problems

The number of children testifying in court has posed serious practical and legal problems for the judicial system. One problem confronting the courts is how to protect children from experiencing the psychological trauma resulting from face-to-face confrontation with a defendant who may have physically harmed the child or threatened future harm to the child.

The Maturation And Disintegration Of The Hearsay Exception For Statements For Medical Examination In Child Sexual Abuse Cases, Robert P. Mosteller

Law and Contemporary Problems

Mosteller examines the treatment of children as victims and witnesses in criminal trials, most frequently involving sexual abuse, over the last quarter of the twentieth century, and from that experience, to draw lessons. He also examines what has been learned about the hearsay exception for "statements for purposes of medical diagnosis of treatment."

Why Children’S Suggestibility Remains A Serious Concern, Amye R. Warren, Dorothy F. Marsil

Law and Contemporary Problems

Warren and Marsil focus on six areas representing some of the most intractable problems that will require further attention from scientists and practitioners alike. Research on child witnesses is highlighted, concentrating primarily on studies published or presented in the past ten years.

Medical Experts And The Ghost Of Galileo, Peter Huber

Law and Contemporary Problems

The law and science of traumatic cancer and cerebral palsy are discussed in the context of rules of evidence that are concerned with the testimony of medical experts in court. An evidentiary fallacy is demonstrated using the scientific expertise of the scientist Galileo as an example.

Compelling Testimony In Alaska: The Coming Rejection Of Use And Derivative Use Immunity, Jeffrey M. Feldman, Stuart A. Ollanik

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

Testimonial Privileges And The Preferences Of Friendship, Sanford Levinson

Duke Law Journal

Professor Levinson distinguishes two difficulties in the law of testimonial privilege. The first is that of identifying the core of concerns that the law of privilege is intended to address. The second is that of explaining how the structure of the positive law "fits" these core concerns. Analysis of the first difficulty shows that privilege law imputes to intimacy a value that is not reducible to the individualistic concerns that underlie the privilege against self-incrimination. Discussion of the second difficulty reveals that the law evasively and unthinkingly has compromised the value it would-and ought to-accord to intimate relationships.