Law Commons^™

Limited Admissibility And Its Limitations, Lisa Dufraimont

Lisa Dufraimont

Among the challenges facing juries and judges in adjudicating cases is the obligation to use evidence for limited purposes. Evidence inadmissible for one purpose is frequently admissible for other purposes, a situation known as "limited admissibility". Where limited admissibility arises in jury trials, courts generally deliver limiting instructions outlining the inferences that can legitimately be drawn from the evidence and identifying prohibited lines of reasoning to be avoided. Limiting instructions represent an expedient solution to limited-admissibility problems, but they create obvious problems of their own. A thoughtful observer might suspect-as psychological studies confirm-that limiting instructions are likely to fail in …

Kadhi's Courts And Kenya's Constitution: An International Human Rights Perspective, Joseph M. Isanga

Joseph Isanga

This article examines Kenya's international human rights obligations and finds that there is support for religious courts, provided relevant human rights guarantees are ensured. Kenya's Kadhi's courts have existed in the constitution since independence from the British. So why do some religious groups now oppose them or their enhancement under Kenya's Constitution? Opponents of Kadhi's courts advance, inter aha, the following arguments. First, Kadhi's courts provisions favour one religion and divide Kenyans along religious lines. Second, they introduce Sharia law. Third, the historical reasons for their existence have been overtaken by events. Fourth, non-Muslims shouldn't be taxed to fund a …

Control Of The Attorney-Client Privilege After Mergers And Other Transformational Transactions: Should Control Of The Privilege Be Alienable By Contract?, Grace M. Giesel

Grace M. Giesel

In recent years, parties to mergers and other transformational transactions have begun inserting into their deal documents provisions allocating post-transaction control of the attorney-client privilege for pretransaction communications. The controller of the privilege is the person or entity who decides whether to assert the privilege or, rather, to waive it. Commonly, representatives of the target entity in a merger or representatives of an asset seller in a transformational sale want post-transaction control of the privilege for pre-transaction communications relating to the transaction. They want control of the privilege so the surviving entity cannot access or use those communications against the …

Deceptively Simple: Framing, Intuition And Judicial Gatekeeping Of Forensic Feature-Comparison Methods Evidence, Jane Campbell Moriarty

Jane Campbell Moriarty

Who Speaks For Neuroscience? Neuroimaging Evidence And Courtroom Expertise, Jane Campbell Moriarty, Daniel D. Langleben

Jane Campbell Moriarty

An Undetectable Constitutional Violation, Jill W. Lens

Jill Wieber Lens

State Searches, Federal Cases, And Choice Of Law: Just A Little Respect, John B. Corr

John (Bernie) Corr

No abstract provided.

Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Social Media Evidence, Darla W. Jackson

Darla W. Jackson

No abstract provided.

Arson-Associated Homicide In Australia: A Five Year Follow-Up, Claire Ferguson, Rebekah Doley, Bruce D. Watt, Mathew Lyneham, Janet Payne

Rebekah Doley

Arson homicides are rare, representing only two percent of all homicides in Australia each year. In this study, data was collected from the AIC’s National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) to build on previous research undertaken into arson-associated homicides (Davies & Mouzos 2007) and to provide more detailed analysis of cases and offenders. Over the period 1989 to 2010, there were 123 incidents of arson-associated homicide, involving 170 unique victims and 131 offenders. The majority of incidents (63%) occurred in the victim’s home and more than half (57%) of all victims were male. It was found that there has been a …

Probability, Individualization, And Uniqueness In Forensic Science Evidence: Listening To The Academies, David H. Kaye

David Kaye

Day in and day out, criminalists testify to positive, uniquely specific identifications of fingerprints, bullets, handwriting, and other trace evidence. A committee of the National Academy of Sciences, building on the writing of academic commentators, has called for sweeping changes in the presentation and production of evidence of identification. These include some form of circumscribed and standardized testimony. But the Academy report is short on the specifics of the testimony that would be legally and professionally allowable. This essay outlines possible types of testimony that might harmonize the testimony of criminalists with the actual state of forensic science. It does …

Do We Need A Calculus Of Weight To Understand Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt?, David H. Kaye

David Kaye

The commentary on a paper by L.J. Cohen, prepared for a symposium on probability and inference in the law of evidence, shows that the legal requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt can be understood simply as demanding a sufficiently high probability that the prosecution's narrative or story of the facts, which captures all the elements of the offense, is true. No separate measure of the "weight" of the totality of the evidence is required to understand the burden of persuasion. Any incompleteness in the evidence can be accounted for by a conditional probability that includes the presence of any …

Case Comment - People V. Nelson: A Tale Of Two Statistics, David H. Kaye

David Kaye

In recent years, defendants who were identified as a result of a search through a database of DNA profiles have argued that the probability that a randomly selected person would match a crime-scene stain overstates the probative value of the match. The statistical literature is divided, with most statisticians who have written on the subject rejecting this claim. In People v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of California held that when the random-match probability is so small as to make it exceedingly unlikely that any unrelated individual has the incriminating DNA profile, this statistic is admissible in a database-search case. …

'False But Highly Persuasive:' How Wrong Were The Probability Estimates In Mcdaniel V. Brown?, David H. Kaye

David Kaye

In McDaniel v. Brown, the Supreme Court will review the use of DNA evidence in a 1994 trial for sexual assault and attempted murder. The Court granted certiorari to consider two procedural issues - the standard of federal postconviction review of a state jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence, and the district court's decision to allow the prisoner to supplement the record of trials, appeals, and state postconviction proceedings with a geneticist's letter twelve years after the trial.

This essay clarifies the nature and extent of the errors in the presentation of the DNA evidence in Brown. It questions …

Bill Cosby, The Lustful Disposition Exception, And The Doctrine Of Chances, Wesley Oliver

Wesley M Oliver

The History Of Children's Hearsay: From Old Bailey To Post-Davis, Thomas D. Lyon, Raymond Lamagna

Thomas D. Lyon

The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.

Relevance Ratio: Evaluating The Probative Value Of Expert Testimony In Child Sexual Abuse Cases , Thomas D. Lyon, Jonathan J. Koehler

Thomas D. Lyon

No abstract provided.

Equal Access To Evidence: The Case For The Defense Use Of Immunity For Essential Witnesses, Andrea Lyon

Andrea D. Lyon

No abstract provided.

The Importance Of Being Empirical, Michael Heise

Michael Heise

Legal scholarship is becoming increasingly empirical. Although empirical methodologies gain important influence within the legal academy, their application in legal research remains underdeveloped. This paper surveys and analyzes the state of empirical legal scholarship and explores possible influences on its production. The paper advances a normative argument for increased empirical legal scholarship.

Systemic Lying, Julia Simon-Kerr

Julia Simon-Kerr

This Article offers the foundational account of systemic lying from a definitional and theoretical perspective. Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors in the legal system who lie or violate their oaths across cases for a consistent reason that is linked to their conception of justice. It becomes a functioning mechanism within the legal system and changes the operation of the law as written. By identifying systemic lying, this Article challenges the assumption that all lying in the legal system is the same. It argues that systemic lying poses a particular threat to the legal system. This means that …

Dualism And Doctrine, Alex Stein, Dov Fox

Alex Stein

What kinds of harm among those that tortfeasors inflict are worthy of compensation? Which forms of self-incriminating evidence are privileged against government compulsion? What sorts of facts constitute a criminal defendant’s intent? Existing doctrine pins the answer to all of these questions on whether the injury, facts, or evidence at stake are “mental” or “physical.” The assumption that operations of the mind are meaningfully distinct from those of the body animates fundamental rules in our law.

A tort victim cannot recover for mental harm on its own because the law presumes that he is able to unfeel any suffering arising …

Inefficient Evidence, Alex Stein

Alex Stein

Why set up evidentiary rules rather than allow factfinders to make decisions by considering all relevant evidence? This fundamental question has been the subject of unresolved controversy among scholars and policymakers since it was raised by Bentham at the beginning of the nineteenth century. This Article offers a surprisingly straightforward answer: An economically minded legal system must suppress all evidence that brings along a negative productivity-expense balance and is therefore inefficient. Failure to suppress inefficient evidence will result in serious diseconomies of scale. To operationalize this idea, I introduce a “signal-to-noise” method borrowed from statistics, science, and engineering. This method …

The New Doctrinalism: Implications For Evidence Theory, Alex Stein

Alex Stein

This Article revisits and refines the organizing principles of evidence law: case specificity, cost minimization, and equal best. These three principles explain and justify all admissibility and sufficiency requirements of the law of evidence. The case-specificity principle requires that factfinders base their decisions on the relative plausibility of the stories describing the parties’ entitlement–accountability relationship. The cost-minimization principle demands that factfinders minimize the cost of errors and the cost of avoiding errors as a total sum. The equal-best principle mandates that factfinders afford every person the maximal feasible protection against risk of error while equalizing that protection across the board. …

Law, Science, And The Economy: One Domain?, David S. Caudill

David S Caudill

In an effort to explore the theoretical and practical promise of ignoring or erasing conventional boundaries and distinctions—such as law/society or inside/outside—in accounts of legal processes and institutions, I consider the problem of financial bias in scientific expertise. I first draw an analogy with science studies, and particularly Latour’s notion of science as a coproduction, which challenges the boundaries (i) between science and society, and (ii) between natural and social influences on the production of scientific knowledge. I then acknowledge the efforts of Philip Mirowski, in his concern that privatization trends degrade science, to overcome an individualistic perspective on financial …

Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty Of Deliberately Disregarding, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Due process requires courts to make decisions based on the evidence before them without regard to information outside of the record. Skepticism about the ability of jurors to ignore inadmissible information is widespread. Empirical research confirms that this skepticism is well-founded. Many courts and commentators, however, assume that judges can accomplish what jurors cannot. This article reports the results of experiments we have conducted to determine whether judges can ignore inadmissible information. We found that the judges who participated in our experiments struggled to perform this challenging mental task. The judges had difficulty disregarding demands disclosed during a settlement conference, …

Burden Of Proof, Prima Facie Case And Presumption In Wto Dispute Settlement, John J. Barceló Iii

John J. Barceló III

The essay maintains that the WTO Appellate Body's concepts and terminology concerning a claimant's burden of proof-the concepts of prima facie case, presumption, and burden shifting-are disturbingly ambiguous and potentially misleading. This is so whether one thinks of these terms from either a common law or a civil law perspective. In the face of the current ambiguity, a future panel might understand the AB's prima facie case concept to require an overwhelming level of proof from the claimant. On the other hand, a different panel might allow a rather weak level of claimant's proof to meet the prima facie requirement, …

Effective Use Of War Stories In Teaching Evidence, Michael L. Seigel

Michael L Seigel

There are many ways to teach any law course successfully, including Evidence. It can be approached from a very theoretical perspective or a very practical one. Some professors still use the tried and true case method, while others have moved more toward a problem-oriented approach. Others use movie clips to illustrate important points. A minority of professors have even adopted a NITA approach, essentially teaching Evidence through Trial Practice. This Essay does not advocate any particular method for teaching Evidence. It does take the position, however, that if an Evidence professor has some practical experience, he or she would be …

Admissibility Of Co-Conspirator Statements In A Post-Crawford World, Michael L. Seigel, Daniel Weisman

Michael L Seigel

This Article takes the position that co-conspirator statements must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are testimonial and thus subject to exclusion under the Confrontation Clause. Further, in light of the fact that the author of the majority opinions in Crawford and Davis was Justice Antonin Scalia, this Article examines whether interpreting the Sixth Amendment as a bar to the admission of certain coconspirator statements would violate an originalist interpretation of that provision. The conclusion reached is that it would not. In the current era of ever-narrowing rights for criminal defendants, reaffirming the law's commitment to …

Evidence Of Lies And Rules Of Evidence: The Admissibility Of Fmri-Based Expert Opinion Of Witness Truthfulness, William A. Woodruff

William A. Woodruff

No abstract provided.

Why Judges Applying The Daubert Trilogy Need To Know About The Social, Institutional, And Rhetorical -- And Not Just The Methodological Aspects Of Science, Lewis H. Larue, David S. Caudill

David S Caudill

In response to the claim that many judges are deficient in their understanding of scientific methodology, this Article identifies in recent cases (i) a pragmatic perspective on the part of federal appellate judges when they reverse trial judges who tend to idealize science (i.e., who do not appreciate the local and practical goals and limitations of science), and (ii) an educational model of judicial gatekeeping that results in reversal of trial judges who defer to the social authority of science (i.e., who mistake authority for reliability). Next, this Article observes that courts (in the cases it analyzes) are not interested …