Law Commons^™

Shifting The Male Gaze Of Evidence, Teneille R. Brown

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

In this article I target the altar at which many of us worship—the pursuit of rationality. For evidence purposes, rationality is defined as decisions that are reasonable, objective, inductive, and free from the bias of emotion. This view of rationality is deeply embedded in evidence scholarship and practice. It is also reflected in evidence rules like FRE 403, which treat emotional testimony as unfairly prejudicial simply because it is emotional. The anti-emotion view of rationality reflects the thinking of Western philosophical giants. Plato, Hobbes, Descartes, and Bacon all thought that men should strive for rationality by suppressing their emotions, because …

Evidentiary Policies Through Other Means: The Disparate Impact Of “Substantive Law” On The Distribution Of Errors Among Racial Groups, Gustavo Ribeiro

Utah Law Review

This Article develops an analytical framework to investigate novel ways in which legal reforms disguised as “substantive” can affect procedural due process safeguards differently among racial groups. Scholars have long recognized the impact evidence rules have on substantive policies, such as modifying primary incentives or affecting the distribution of legal entitlements in society. However, legal scholars have not paid enough attention to the reverse effect: how changes in “substantive law” influence policy objectives traditionally associated with evidence law—“evidentiary policies.”

To fill this gap, this Article discusses three related evidentiary policies. The first is accuracy, which courts and scholars consider a …

The Incomplete Rule Of Completeness: Taking A Stand On Federal Rule Of Evidence 106, Louisa Heiny, Emily Nuvan

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

The common law Rule of Completeness served an important role in Anglo-American jurisprudence for centuries. Historically, it was a rule guided by principles of fundamental fairness and was designed to prevent parties from introducing incomplete and misleading statements at trial.

What was once a simple rule has been muddled by Federal Rule of Evidence 106. The common law rule language was lost when Rule 106 was drafted, and there is no agreement as to what portion of the common law survived and what was left behind. Particularly problematic are the issues of whether Rule 106 applies to oral as well …

State V. Worthen: Demonstrating Utah's Need For An Expanded, Absolute Victim-Counselor Testimonial Privilege, Barry G. Stratford

Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement

Evidentiary privileges have generated disagreement since they were first recognized in the law. These privileges exist to prevent a witness from being compelled to disclose certain information. Such protections acknowledge that certain relationships or communications are so important in society that they warrant heightened confidentiality. A number of privileges are designed to protect communications made during professional relationships. These include the relationship between attorney and client, physician and patient, psychotherapist and patient, and clergyman and penitent. In practice, these privileges require “some sacrifice of availability of evidence relevant to the administration of justice.” When parties seek communications and records arising …