Law Commons^™

Changemakers: Nate Reid : L'26 : The Surprising Impact Of Pro Bono Opportunities 09-02-2025, Suzi Morales

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Evidentiary Practices In Arbitration: Need For A Minimum Framework, Krishnaja Olappamanna

Theses and Dissertations

Indian arbitration has emerged as a preferred method of dispute resolution, offering the benefits of flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and confidentiality over conventional litigation. Although this flexibility, more specifically in evidentiary matters, has brought procedural inconsistencies and uncertainties that detract from the enforceability of arbitral awards.

This is in line with Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, which prohibits arbitral tribunals from following the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 or the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. While the provision allows procedural autonomy, it also brings with it an uncertainty in the evidentiary process of arbitrations, mostly when …

A Framework For Interpreting Emojis In Legal Contexts, Anne Merritt

Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies

In the 2023 case of South West Terminal Ltd. v. Achter Land & Cattle Ltd., a Saskatchewan court found that a thumbs-up emoji, as a standalone item of communication, constituted the acceptance of a contract between a buyer and seller. The trial judge noted that such communication was “the new reality in Canadian society” for which courts should be prepared to interpret novel units of language arising in the digital age. However, an analysis of recent Canadian cases involving emojis shows that courts have not been prepared, with inconsistencies in how emojis are represented in evidence, how they are …

Law School News: Rwu Law Ranked #11 Nationally For Most Graduates In Public Interest Law Careers 4-15-2025, Helga Melgar

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Law Of Rebuttable Presumptions In Maine, Curtis L. Bourdon

Maine Law Review

In Hinds v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court sought to clarify and simplify the law of rebuttable presumptions as to the quantum of evidence that must be introduced before a presumption is dispelled. The Maine court adopted a rule which states that a presumption is rebutted when the probability of the nonexistence of the presumed fact is as probable as its existence. Stated another way, a presumption is rebutted when the jurors' minds are placed in equilibrium. Ten years later, in State v. O'Clair, the court expressly incorporated the Hinds rule into criminal procedure. …

Law Of Rebuttable Presumptions In Maine, Curtis L. Bourdon

Maine Law Review

In Hinds v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court sought to clarify and simplify the law of rebuttable presumptions as to the quantum of evidence that must be introduced before a presumption is dispelled. The Maine court adopted a rule which states that a presumption is rebutted when the probability of the nonexistence of the presumed fact is as probable as its existence. Stated another way, a presumption is rebutted when the jurors' minds are placed in equilibrium. Ten years later, in State v. O'Clair, the court expressly incorporated the Hinds rule into criminal procedure. …

Preliminary Questions Of Fact: Respective Roles Of Judge And Jury In Maine Courts, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Virtually indisputable in the law is the notion that the trial judge determines questions of admissibility of evidence. However, when admissibility depends upon the evaluation of a preliminary question of fact, both courts and commentators disagree as to whether the judge should continue to occupy the role of sole decision-maker. The intertwining of fact, the preliminary condition, and law, the admissibility decision, raises some havoc with accepted views of the judge as arbiter of the law and the jury as fact finder. If the judge determines both questions, he is resolving not only legal, but also factual issues traditionally within …

Science And Causality In Technology Litigation, J. Nathan Matias, Jonathon W. Penney

Articles & Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

The Repair Rule: Maine Rule Of Evidence 407(A) And The Admissibility Of Subsequent Remedial Measures In Proving Negligence, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Evidence of subsequent repairs is generally excluded when submitted for admission as circumstantial evidence of negligence. Although this Comment will examine various theories under which such evidence has been held inadmissible, these theories are all based on one of two assumptions. Evidence of subsequent repairs has been excluded either because it is regarded as irrelevant to the issue of negligence, or although relevant, as incompetent because its admission is believed to counteract the strong public policy to encourage repairs. Most modern rules of evidence now base the exclusion on the public policy rationale. Thus, the effect of the subsequent repair …

The Maine Rules Of Evidence: What They Are And How They Got That Way, Richard H. Field

Maine Law Review

The promulgation by the Supreme Judicial Court of the Maine Rules of Evidence is another landmark in Maine judicial administration. When the Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted in 1959, the old rules of the common law, somewhat eroded by time and patched here and there by legislative poultices, still governed Maine pleading and practice. Since then modem rules of Criminal Procedure have also been adopted, a new Criminal Code has been enacted, and the court system has been reorganized. The Maine Rules of Evidence round out this picture of progress. The Rules of Evidence were promulgated pursuant to the …

Validity And Relevancy Analysis: An Approach To The Admissions Of Experimental Evidence, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Rules of evidence in the common law system were developed to serve the fundamental purpose of minimizing erroneous factual conclusions by the jury. In pursuit of this goal, two guiding principles have been followed: first, that the jury should be provided with the most accurate and trustworthy information possible; second, that the flow of information to the jury should be controlled to exclude evidence which is irrelevant or otherwise misleading. Since the earliest cases in which the results of experiments were offered as evidence, American courts have treated experiments as a unique form of evidence but have found it difficult …

Accidental Brady Violations, Adam M. Gershowitz

Texas A&M Law Review

Prosecutors are often seen as the villains of the criminal justice system. And the most villainous thing a prosecutor can do is to commit an intentional Brady violation by withholding favorable and material evidence from the defense. Not surprisingly, there is a wide literature criticizing prosecutors for flagrant misconduct.

But not all Brady violations are intentional. Prosecutors sometimes—perhaps often—commit accidental Brady violations by inadvertently failing to recognize favorable evidence. Because many prosecutors are inexperienced, overworked, and under-trained, they do not recognize exculpatory or impeachment evidence when it is in their files. Additionally, prosecutors also fail to disclose evidence that is …

Evidence Quiz With Answers And Explanations: Propensity, Frank Rosenblatt

Journal Articles

This quiz tests basic concepts of character, propensity, and impeachment using the Federal Rules of Evidence.

How To Conduct Serious Affairs Like Reasonable People, Yakov Malkiel

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Civil Jury Trial Discussions In Colorado: Perspectives From Judees And Attorneys After Twenty-Five Years Of Jury Reform, Juan G. Villaseñor

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

In the United States, the overwhelming practice in civil jury trials (and certainly in criminal trials) is that jurors must wait to deliberate until they have heard all the evidence, the attorneys’ closing arguments, and received the instructions on the law from the court. Generally, jurors may not discuss the evidence they are hearing or seeing as the trial progresses, and the judge, at multiple points during the trial, typically instructs jurors not to do so, especially before any recess.

Colorado, among a handful of other jurisdictions, is an exception to that practice. In civil jury trials in district court, …

The Nyc Office Of Administrative Trials And Hearings: Forty-Five Years Of Delivering Impartial Adjudications And Providing Access To Justice, Asim Rehman

Cardozo Law Review

It was an honor to deliver the 2024 Uri and Caroline Bauer Memorial Lecture at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and to follow in the footsteps of the many legal luminaries who have delivered this lecture before. Given their chosen professions, it may be fair to assume that Uri Bauer was a believer in the rule of law and Caroline Bauer was a believer in government. Accordingly, I would like to talk about those two topics as they relate to the work of the New York City Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings (OATH). First, after a general …

The Challenge That The Advent Of Artificial Intelligence (Ai) Tools Poses To The Procedures For Determining The Existence Of The Preliminary Facts That Condition The Admissibility Of Items Of Evidence, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Marquette Law Review

“[A]d quæstionem facti non respondent judices; . . . ad quæstionem juris not respondent juratores.” Judges do not answer questions of fact; jurors do not answer questions of law.

The jury is a central institution in the American level infrastructure. The Sixth and Seventh Amendments elevate the jury trial right to constitutional status. Of course, when a judge presides at a jury trial, the question that naturally arises is the division of decision-making labor between judge and jury. In the past few decades, the Supreme Court’s Apprendi v. New Jersey line of authority has expanded the jury’s authority to decide …

Affording Oral Tradition Evidence Due Weight Before The International Court Of Justice, Terrence Neal

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Oral traditions are irreplaceable sources of historical information, particularly with regard to Indigenous Peoples’ histories and cultures. However, when states have submitted oral traditions as evidence of historical practices, events, and circumstances in cases before the International Court of Justice (“Court”), the Court has been reluctant to afford them significant weight. This Article, which is the first detailed study on the Court’s treatment of oral traditions, examines whether the Court is failing to provide them due or appropriate weight. Based on historical, archaeological, and anthropological research, it establishes that oral traditions can be as reliable as written documents for reconstructing …

Generative Ai As Courtroom Evidence: A Practical Guide, Neal Feigenson, Brian Carney

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trust, But Verify: The Case For Abolishing The Outlier Authentication Provisions Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Sydney A. Beckman

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Armour V. Bader, 316 A.3d 1164 (R.I. 2024), Caroline Stanton Chlaupek

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Virtual Court Proceedings And Their Effect On Criminal Defendants’ Rights, Hunter J. Phillips

Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review

This Comment examines whether implementing virtual evidentiary proceedings diminishes a criminal defendant’s Constitutional rights. Part One introduces the Confrontation Clause and judicial interpretations that shape its modern legal view.

Part One also introduces the importance of face-to-face testimony and how the Confrontation Clause is founded upon that principle. Part One concludes by offering psychological research that highlights the im-portance of face-to-face proceedings that allow for effective criminal proceedings. Part Two introduces legislation that hinders defendants’ Confrontation rights and critically analyzes that legislation. Part Three argues for the abandonment of virtual criminal proceedings and highlights other factors that should be considered …

The False Evidence Ploy: A Coercive, Not Just Deceptive, Police Tactic, Alexa D. Sondey

Touro Law Review

Why would people confess to a crime they did not commit? It may seem hard to imagine that an innocent person would confess but as this Note will show, false confessions are a real and serious issue. One cause of false confessions is the False Evidence Ploy - a police interrogation tactic where police falsely tell a suspect they have some sort of incriminating evidence against them. This Note argues that the Ploy is psychological coercion, as it may cause innocent suspects to believe they actually committed the crime and then confess. N.Y. Bill S324A presented a solution, banning the …

Law Enforcement Privilege, Rebecca Wexler

Michigan Law Review

You can’t question a secret you haven’t been told. The criminal legal system depends on fair and open proceedings to expose and regulate unlawful and unconstitutional police conduct through the courts. If police can use claims of secrecy to systematically thwart criminal defendants’ access to evidence, judicial review will fail. And yet that is exactly what is happening under a common-law doctrine called the “law enforcement privilege.” The privilege empowers police and prosecutors to rely on the results of secret investigative methods while withholding information from the defense about how those methods work. It risks perpetuating unconstitutional conduct, enabling wrongful …

Let's Break Some Rules: Immodest Proposals For Evidence Reform, Len Niehoff

Articles

In 1975, when the American Bar Association launched LITIGATION, its editors dedicated the entirety of one of the journal's first issues to evidence. Authors included distinguished practitioners, respected judges, and academic giants like Margaret A. Berger, Irving Younger, and Jim McElhaney. Subjects varied, but the articles shared a common sensibility: The recently adopted Federal Rules of Evidence were a good thing.

Rules And Laws For Civil Actions 2026, Stella Burch Elias, Derek T. Muller, Jason Rantanen, Caroline Sheerin, Maya Steinitz

Books

Rules and Laws for Civil Actions is an open-access resource for law students containing the U.S. Constitution, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and selected federal and state statutes. The book was created by a team of faculty members at the University of Iowa College of Law to supplement the study of Civil Procedure, Evidence, Constitutional Law, and other law school courses. In addition to containing the official text, each legal source found in Rules and Laws for Civil Actions is accompanied by an introductory section written by an Iowa Law professor …

The Jury Does Not Always Need Help From Lay Opinion Witnesses, Taurus Myhand

Scholarly Works

Who is the “reasonable person”? There is little doubt that every competent legal professional, both in law practice and in the academic setting, has spent a great deal of time attempting to define the reasonable person. “Reasonableness is largely a matter of common sense.” In police encounters, the definition is certainly important to the outcome of questionable police conduct. How the reasonable person is defined often determines whether a police officer has infringed on an individual’s Fourth Amendment guarantee to be secure in their person against unreasonable searches and seizures. As the narratives of the news media shape how some …

You Get The Jury You Get And You Don’T Throw A Fit, Taurus Myhand

Scholarly Works

The proliferation of deepfake videos has resulted in rapid improvements in the technology used to create them. Although the use of fake videos and images is not new, advances in artificial intelligence have made deepfakes easier to make and harder to detect. Basic human perception is no longer sufficient to detect deepfakes. Yet, under the current construction of the Federal Rules of Evidence, trials judges are expected to do just that. Trial judges face a daunting challenge when applying the current evidence authentication standards to video evidence in this new reality of widely available deepfake videos. This article examines the …

A Conviction In Jeopardy: The Mysterious Case Against Scott Peterson, Jolie Bodner Zangari

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Federal Rule Of Evidence 702: A History And Guide To The 2023 Amendments Governing Expert Evidence, Mark A. Behrens, Andrew J. Trask

Texas A&M Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended effective December 1, 2023. The Rule was amended to clarify and emphasize that expert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent demonstrates to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered testimony meets all of the Rule’s admissibility requirements. The amendment was necessitated by decisions by many federal courts incorrectly applying the reliability requirements set forth in Rule 702(b) and (d) and declaring that expert testimony is presumed to be admissible. Rule 702 was also amended to prevent “overstatement” by experts. Rule 702(d) now emphasizes that an expert’s opinion …