Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (10)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (6)
- UC Law SF (4)
- Case Western Reserve University School of Law (3)
- Cleveland State University (3)
-
- Mercer University School of Law (3)
- University of Washington School of Law (3)
- West Virginia University (3)
- North Carolina Central University School of Law (2)
- Selected Works (2)
- The University of Akron (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- University of Colorado Law School (2)
- University of Richmond (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Boston University School of Law (1)
- Brigham Young University Law School (1)
- Columbia Law School (1)
- Cornell University Law School (1)
- Florida State University College of Law (1)
- Georgetown University Law Center (1)
- Pace University (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (1)
- UIC School of Law (1)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Kentucky (1)
- University of Northern Iowa (1)
- University of Tulsa College of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (9)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (8)
- Expert evidence (4)
- Hearsay (4)
- Admissibility (3)
-
- Testimony (3)
- Witnesses (3)
- Accredited Proficiency Tested Laboratory Analysis Bureau (APTLAB) (2)
- Authentication (2)
- Civil Procedure/Evidence (2)
- Conditional relevance (2)
- Criminal law (2)
- Cross-examination (2)
- DNA Evidence (2)
- DNA profiling (2)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (2)
- Exclusionary rule (2)
- Exclusions (2)
- Expert testimony (2)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2)
- Homicide (2)
- Impeachment (2)
- Litigation (2)
- Persuasion (2)
- Police (2)
- Probative value (2)
- Professional responsibility (2)
- Relevance (2)
- Searches and Seizures (2)
- Spoliation (2)
- Publication
-
- Articles (6)
- Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Maryland Law Review (6)
- Faculty Publications (3)
- Mercer Law Review (3)
-
- Washington Law Review (3)
- West Virginia Law Review (3)
- All Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Cleveland State Law Review (2)
- Michigan Law Review (2)
- North Carolina Central Law Review (2)
- Publications (2)
- University of Richmond Law Review (2)
- Akron Law Faculty Publications (1)
- American University Law Review (1)
- Architecture Faculty Articles (1)
- Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works (1)
- BYU Law Review (1)
- Book Chapters (1)
- Buffalo Law Review (1)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Florida State University Law Review (1)
- Frank R. Herrmann, S.J. (1)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (1)
- LLM Theses and Essays (1)
- Law Faculty Articles and Essays (1)
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (1)
- Presidential Scholars Theses (1990 – 2006) (1)
- Reviews (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 61 - 65 of 65
Full-Text Articles in Law
Probability And Proof In State V. Skipper: An Internet Exchange, Ronald J. Allen, David J. Balding, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Lewis Henry Larue, Roger C. Park, Bernard Robertson, Alexander Stein
Probability And Proof In State V. Skipper: An Internet Exchange, Ronald J. Allen, David J. Balding, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Lewis Henry Larue, Roger C. Park, Bernard Robertson, Alexander Stein
Articles
This is not a conventional article. It is an edited version of messages sent to an Internet discussion list. The listings begin with the mention of a recent opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court, parts of which are reproduced below. The listings soon move to broader issues concerning probability and other formal systems, their limitations, and their uses either in court or as devices for understanding legal proof.
Proposed Evidence Rules 413 To 415 – Some Problems And Recommendations, James S. Liebman
Proposed Evidence Rules 413 To 415 – Some Problems And Recommendations, James S. Liebman
Faculty Scholarship
Section 320935 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 proposes three new Federal Rules of Evidence-Rules 413-415 – that would liberalize the admissibility of "propensity evidence" in criminal and civil cases involving allegations of sexual assault and child molestation. This Article expresses some reservations about, and suggests some alternatives to, Proposed Rules 413-415.
The Honest Scientist's Guide To Dna Evidence, Richard O. Lempert
The Honest Scientist's Guide To Dna Evidence, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
The honest scientist recognizes that she herself is a test instrument, and a fallible one at that. Subjectivity inescapably enters into any human endeavor, and should not be denied. DNA testing is rife with subjective elements, no place more so than at the crucial stage of deciding whether a match exists. On the one hand, non-matching extraneous bands may sometimes be properly disregarded and patterns that do not quite meet objective matching criteria may be appropriately regarded as incriminatory matches. On the other hand, band patterns that do meet objective matching criteria may be treated as exonerative depending on how …
Intellectual Coherence In An Evidence Code, Paul F. Rothstein
Intellectual Coherence In An Evidence Code, Paul F. Rothstein
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The Federal Rules of Evidence (Federal Rules or Rules) were created in large part to promote uniformity and predictability in federal trials by providing a relatively instructive guide for judges and lawyers concerning the admissibility of evidence. As with any codification, success in this respect requires, among other things, that there be a considerable degree of intellectual coherence among the code's various provisions. The Federal Rules fall short of intellectual coherence in a number of areas. They contain contradictory and inconsistent mandates that do not make theoretical sense and therefore accord the trial judge almost unlimited discretion in these areas. …
The Establishment Of A Rule Against Hearsay In Romano-Canonical Procedure, Frank R. Herrmann
The Establishment Of A Rule Against Hearsay In Romano-Canonical Procedure, Frank R. Herrmann
Frank R. Herrmann, S.J.
No abstract provided.