Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Testimony (3)
- Admissibility (2)
- Exclusions (2)
- Juries (2)
- Jurors (2)
-
- Probability (2)
- Witnesses (2)
- A cognitive theory of juror decision making: the story model (1)
- Accuracy (1)
- Adversarial system (1)
- Bayes Theorem (1)
- Bayesian reasoning (1)
- Burden of production (1)
- Character impeachment evidence (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- DNA identification (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Evidence law (1)
- Examination (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Expert witnesses (1)
- Game theory (1)
- Griffin v. California (1)
- Hastie (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- Impeachment (1)
- Jury deliberation (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Logic (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert
Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
There are three ways in which stories may figure prominently at trials. First, litigants may tell stories to jurors. Not only is there some social science evidence that this happens, but trial lawyers have an instinctive sense that this is what they do. Ask a litigator to describe a current case and she is likely to reply, "Our story is ... " Second, jurors may try to make sense of the evidence they receive by fitting it to some story pattern. If so, the process is likely to feed back on itself. That is, jurors are likely to build a …
Some Caveats Concerning Dna As Criminal Identification Evidence: With Thanks To The Reverend Bayes, Richard O. Lempert
Some Caveats Concerning Dna As Criminal Identification Evidence: With Thanks To The Reverend Bayes, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
The conference panel at which this paper was originally presented was structured along the lines of a debate. The three speakers who were supposed to advocate the use of DNA evidence were labeled, as is customary, Proponents. But those who were supposed to take the negative side were not called Opponents. Rather they were labeled Caveators. I do not know who is responsible for this label, but I think it gets things exactly right. To my mind anyone considering DNA as criminal identification evidence should be a Caveator. The promise and utility of DNA analysis in identifying the perpetrators of …
Refocusing The New Evidence Scholarship : A Comment On Robert S. Thompson's "Decision, Disciplined Inferences And The Adversary Process", Terence J. Anderson
Refocusing The New Evidence Scholarship : A Comment On Robert S. Thompson's "Decision, Disciplined Inferences And The Adversary Process", Terence J. Anderson
Articles
No abstract provided.
Character Impeachment Evidence: Psycho-Bayesian (!?) Analysis And A Proposed Overhaul, Richard D. Friedman
Character Impeachment Evidence: Psycho-Bayesian (!?) Analysis And A Proposed Overhaul, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Typically, arguments for restricting character impeachment evidence are based in part on the premise that prior crimes, at least violent crimes, generally indicate little about a person's veracity. The argument advanced here against character impeachment of criminal defendants does not rely on that premise; in fact, it accepts the premise that prior antisocial behavior, even not involving dishonesty, often does indicate a good deal about a person's general truthtelling inclination. A careful analysis of the situation of the accused on the witness stand-rather than an easy assumption about irrelevance-leads to this Article's broad conclusion that character impeachment evidence of criminal …
Improving The Procedure For Resolving Hearsay Issues, Richard D. Friedman
Improving The Procedure For Resolving Hearsay Issues, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this article, I propose two changes in the way hearsay issues are usually resolved. First, in some circumstances courts should divide the burdens of producing the declarant-for example, by imposing the physical burden on the proponent and the financial burden on the opponent. Second, no matter how the declarant is produced as a witness, she should ordinarily testify as part of the proponent's case, subject to cross-examination by the opponent. If the declarant does become a witness, the admissibility of her out-of-court statement should not be resolved until her current testimony about the underlying events is received.
Expert Evidence, Samuel R. Gross
Expert Evidence, Samuel R. Gross
Articles
It seems that the use of expert witnesses in common law courts has always been troublesome. In his Treatise on the Law of Evidence, first published in 1848, Judge John Pitt Taylor describes several classes of witnesses whose testimony should be viewed with caution, including: enslaved people (which accounts for "the lamentable neglect of truth, which is evinced by most of the nations of India, by the subjects of the Czar, and by many of the peasantry in Ireland"); women (because they are more susceptible to "an innate vain love of the marvelous"); and "foreigners and others ... living out …