Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (1)
- Capital cases (1)
- Civil trials (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Dickerson v. United States (1)
-
- Expert credibility (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Expert witnesses (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Juror understanding of expert evidence (1)
- Jurors (1)
- Jury comprehension (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Missouri v. Seibert (1)
- Penalty phase (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Suppression of statements (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- United States v. Patane (1)
- Victim impact testimony (1)
- Warning and waiver requirements (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Jurors' Evaluations Of Expert Testimony: Judging The Messenger And The Message, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic, Valerie P. Hans
Jurors' Evaluations Of Expert Testimony: Judging The Messenger And The Message, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic, Valerie P. Hans
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors' reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analysis of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the …
Speeding In Reverse: An Anecdotal View Of Why Victim Impact Testimony Should Not Be Driving Capital Prosecutions, Sheri Johnson
Speeding In Reverse: An Anecdotal View Of Why Victim Impact Testimony Should Not Be Driving Capital Prosecutions, Sheri Johnson
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Miranda's Demise, Steven D. Clymer
Miranda's Demise, Steven D. Clymer
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Miranda v. Arizona has been a prominent fixture of the American criminal justice system, as well as police television shows and movies, for more than a third of a century. And when, amid considerable fanfare, the Supreme Court in June 2000 announced its decision in Dickerson v. United States, it appeared that Miranda would retain that status for the foreseeable future. In Dickerson, a surprisingly large 7–2 majority settled a long-standing debate about the constitutional legitimacy of Miranda, holding that the Miranda rules are firmly grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause.
But now, a mere three …