Law Commons^™

The Relevance Of Fda Regulation In Medical Device Product Defect Cases, Edward Correia

DePaul Journal of Health Care Law

Medical device product cases typically involve a jury determination whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. If the product has been cleared for marketing by the Food and Drug Administration, it has been through an extensive regulatory process in which the safety of the product is potentially reviewed by experts. Nevertheless, a number of courts have concluded that juries should not hear about FDA regulation in making factual findings regarding liability and damages.

What the FDA concludes about the safety of a product can be extremely relevant to juries in deciding whether to find there was a defective product and whether …

Character Evidence As A Conduit For Implicit Bias, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Federal Rules of Evidence purport to prohibit character evidence, or evidence regarding a defendant’s past bad acts or propensities offered to suggest that the defendant acted in accordance with a certain character trait on the occasion in question. However, courts regularly admit character evidence through an expanding set of legislative and judicial exceptions that have all but swallowed the rule. In the usual narrative, character evidence is problematic because jurors place excessive weight on it or punish the defendant for past behavior. Lawmakers rely on this narrative when they create exceptions. However, this account arguably misses a highly troublesome …

(Partial) Clarity: Eliminating The Confusion About The Regulation Of The "Fact"Ual Bases For Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Edward J. Imwinkelried

William & Mary Law Review

Expert testimony is offered at the vast majority of trials in courts of general jurisdiction in the United States. Federal Rules of Evidence 702-06 govern the admissibility of such testimony. In its May 15, 2021, report accompanying the most recent proposed amendment to Rule 702, the Advisory Committee on the Evidence Rules asserts that “many courts” have misapplied Rule 702 by holding that questions as to whether “the expert has relied on sufficient facts or data ... are questions of weight and not admissibility.” Rule 702(b) states that to be admissible, an expert opinion must be “based on sufficient fact …

An Objective-Chance Exception To The Rule Against Character Evidence, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A central principle of U.S. law is that individuals should be judged in court based on their actions and not on their character. Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence therefore prohibits evidence of an individual’s previous acts to prove that the individual acted in accordance with a certain character or propensity. But courts regularly deviate from or altogether ignore this rule, resulting in arbitrariness and judgments based on an individual's prior acts rather than on evidence regarding the events at issue in a case.

In this Article, I argue that at the center of the unpredictability surrounding the …

"The" Rule: Modernizing The Potent, But Overlooked, Rule Of Witness Sequestration, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Starting with its illustration in the Apocrypha and continuing into the modern day both in courtrooms and in ubiquitous criminal procedurals, one evidence rule has proven so powerful that it has become known as “THE” Rule of Evidence. The rule of witness sequestration demands that multiple witnesses to the same events be examined separately from one another to prevent them from, consciously or subconsciously, tailoring their testimony to ensure that it remains consistent. Witness sequestration is conceptually simplistic and famously mighty. Yet, this bedrock protection against inaccurate trial testimony is imperiled by conflicting interpretations of Federal Rule of Evidence 615, …

The Liar’S Mark: Character And Forfeiture In Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), Jesse Schupack

Michigan Law Review

Rule 609(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is an outlier. The Rule mandates admission of impeaching evidence of a witness’s past convictions for crimes of dishonesty. It is the only place in the Rules where judges are denied their usual discretion to exclude evidence on the grounds that its admission would be more prejudicial than probative. This Note analyzes three assumptions underlying this unusual Rule: (1) that there is a coherently definable category of crimes of dishonesty, (2) that convictions for crimes of dishonesty are uniquely probative of a person’s character, and (3) that an assessment of moral character …

The Threat Of Deepfakes In Litigation: Raising The Authentication Bar To Combat Falsehood, Agnieszka Mcpeak

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Deepfakes are all over the internet—from shape-shifting comedians and incoherent politicians to disturbingly realistic fake pornography. Emerging technology makes it easier than ever to create a convincing deepfake. What used to take significant time and money to develop is now widely available, often for free, thanks to rapid advances in deepfake technology.

Deepfakes threaten individual rights and even democracy. But their impact on litigation should not be overlooked. The US adversarial system of justice is built on a foundation of seeking out the truth to arrive at a just result. The Federal Rules of Evidence serve as an important framework …

“Rule Of Inclusion" Confusion, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

Some rules of evidence are complex. The federal rules governing the admissibility of hearsay statements,' for example, include at least forty different provisions. Numerous judges and scholars have commented on the complexity of the hearsay rules. Not all rules of evidence are complex, however. For example, the federal rules governing the admissibility of character evidence are relatively straightforward: evidence that is offered for the purpose of proving character is inadmissible, subject to a few well-defined exceptions. Despite this relative straightforwardness, many of the federal circuit courts of appeals have overlaid the rules regarding character evidence particularly Rule 404(b)--with unnecessary interpretive …

Restoring The Presumption Of Innocence: Protecting A Defendant’S Right To A Fair Trial By Closing The Door On 404(B) Evidence, Aaron Diaz

St. Mary's Law Journal

Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence to govern evidentiary procedures and “eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.” In criminal cases, for example, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) seeks to prevent prosecutors from improperly introducing a defendant’s past misdeeds. Nevertheless, prosecutors often attempt to introduce a defendant’s past misconduct to suggest that a defendant has a propensity to commit crimes, which is improper character evidence. Unsurprisingly, 404(b) is one of the most litigated evidence rules and has generated more published opinions than any other subsections of the Rules. And despite efforts to amend Rule 404(b), the rule has remained virtually untouched. …

"Against The Defendant": Plea Rule's Purpose V. Plain Meaning, Nick Bell

Arkansas Law Review

Rarely is there a proverbial “smoking gun” in criminal prosecutions. Instead, prosecutors and defense attorneys must tell juries competing stories—largely from circumstantial evidence—and allow jurors to determine what happened based on inferences gleaned from argument and testimony. Naturally, this creates substantial uncertainty for both prosecutors and defendants. Instead of rolling the dice at trial, the vast majority of criminal matters are resolved through plea bargaining. Plea bargaining provides both sides with a certainty otherwise unobtainable through a traditional trial. The prosecution guarantees itself a conviction, and the defendant will often receive a lighter sentence than if he or she had …

Does Impeachment By Conviction Create Undue Prejudice? An Experiment And An Analysis, David Crump

Akron Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence, and rules in the States, allow for impeachment of the testimony of a witness by proof of the witness's criminal convictions. If the witness is the criminal defendant, however, there are restrictions on this kind of impeachment. The theory is that the jury is supposed to use the evidence solely for impeachment and not to support an inference that the defendant has a propensity toward committing crimes. But intuition tells us that the jury is likely to be influenced toward the prohibited inference of guilt of the crime charged rather than devaluation of credibility alone. …

Blatantly Biased: Expanding Pena-Rodriguez To Cases Of Bias Against Sexual Orientation, Religion, And Sex, Tressa Bussio

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Co-Conspirator Declarations: The Federal Rules Of Evidence And Other Recent Developments, From A Criminal Law Perspective, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

Perhaps the most important advantage available to a prosecutor in a criminal conspiracy case is the exception to the hearsay rule for co-conspirator declarations. The exception is widely used and is often a significant part of the government presentation. In essence, it provides that otherwise inadmissible hearsay declarations of coconspirators are admissible at trial against the defendant so long as they were made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The exception typically arises when an alleged co-conspirator declarant tells the witness (often an undercover police officer) all about the conspiracy, perhaps in the hope of attracting a …

The Restyled Federal Rules Of Evidence, Davison M. Douglas, Sidney A. Fitzwater, Daniel J. Capra, Robert A. Hinkle, Joseph Kimble, Joan N. Ericksen, Marilyn L. Huff, Reena A. Raggi, Geraldine Soat Brown, Edward H. Cooper, Kenneth S. Broun, Harris L. Hartz, Katharine Traylor Schaffzin, Roger C. Park, Deborah J. Merritt, Andrew D. Hurwitz, W. Jeremy Counseller, Paula Hannaford-Agor

Davison M. Douglas

A lightly edited transcript of the Symposium held at the William & Mary School of Law on October 28, 2011.

How Evidence Of Subsequent Remedial Measures Matters, Bernard Chao, Kylie Santos

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence 407 prohibits plaintiffs from introducing evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show that the defendant is to blame. Among its purported justifications, the rule prevents hindsight bias from unduly influencing jury decisions. Nonetheless, plaintiffs often take advantage of the rule’s numerous exceptions to introduce evidence of remedial measures for other purposes (e.g. to prove feasibility). Fearing that the exceptions could swallow the rule, some courts will even exclude evidence that fits into one of these exceptions because it is ostensibly too prejudicial. Alternatively, other courts instruct juries that they should only use the evidence for the …

A Positive First Step, But Maryland’S New “Evidence Of Other Sexually Assaultive Behavior” Statute Does Not Go Far Enough: Why Maryland Should Allow Relevant Evidence Of A Defendant’S Sexually Assaultive Behavior To Be Admissible In Court In All Sex Crimes Cases – Similar To The Federal Rules Of Evidence 413 And 414, Sameerah Mickey

University of Baltimore Law Forum

No abstract provided.

Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley

Michigan Law Review

Circuit courts are split on whether and to what extent the Daubert standard should apply at class certification. Potential plaintiffs believe that application of Daubert would make it nearly impossible to obtain class certification. For potential defendants, the application of the standard is an important way to ensure that the certification process is fair. This Note examines the incentives underlying the push to apply the Daubert standard at class certification and the benefits and drawbacks associated with that proposal. It proposes a solution that balances the concerns of both plaintiffs and defendants by focusing on three factors: the obstacles to …

Preface To The Third Edition By The General Editor. Preface To The New Wigmore: A Treatise On Evidence: Selected Rules Of Limited Admissibility, Richard D. Friedman

Other Publications

As General Editor of this treatise, my principal job is to recruit an excellent team of authors; no one in the modern day could hope to replicate John Henry Wigmore's one-man show. David Leonard, not only a superb scholar but also an exemplary person through and through, was one of the first people I asked, and to my delight he joined the project. He tackled his assignment with great ability and broad vision--and also graciousness in dealing with a slew of editorial comments from me. With a degree of efficiency and industry that can perhaps best be described in this …

The Persistence Of The Probabilistic Perspective, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The publication now of an essay written by Craig Callen nearly a decade ago is cause for wistful celebration. Even while we are reminded how suddenly and prematurely Craig’s life ended, it is good to have one more academic contribution from him, especially because it is marked by the erudition, thoroughness, gentleness, and humor that characterized him.

Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

The (Mis)Application Of Rule 404(B) Heuristics, Dora W. Klein

University of Miami Law Review

In all of the federal circuit courts of appeals, application of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has been distorted by judicially-created “tests” that, while intended to assist trial courts in properly admitting or excluding evidence, do not actually test for the kind of evidence prohibited by this rule. Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of “crimes, wrongs, or other acts” if the purpose for admitting the evidence is to prove action in accordance with a character trait. This evidence is commonly referred to as “propensity” evidence, or “once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer” evidence.

This Article examines …

The (Mis)Application Of Rule 404(B) Heuristics, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

In all of the federal circuit courts of appeals, application of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has been distorted by judicially-created "tests" that, while intended to assist trial courts in properly admitting or excluding evidence, do not actually test for the kind of evidence prohibited by this rule. Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of "crimes, wrongs, or other acts" if the purpose for admitting the evidence is to prove action in accordance with a character trait. This evidence is commonly referred to as "propensity" evidence, or "once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer" evidence.

This Article examines …

Diamonds In The Rough: A Review Of Tiffany V. Costco And A Call To Apply Daubert To The Admissibility Of Consumer Survey Evidence In Trademark Infringement Litigation, Michael J. Borger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cabining Judicial Discretion Over Forensic Evidence With A New Special Relevance Rule, Emma F.E. Shoucair

Michigan Law Review

Modern forensic evidence suffers from a number of flaws, including insufficient scientific grounding, exaggerated testimony, lack of uniform best practices, and an inefficacious standard for admission that regularly allows judges to admit scientifically unsound evidence. This Note discusses these problems, lays out the current landscape of forensic science reform, and suggests the addition of a new special relevance rule to the Federal Rules of Evidence (and similar rules in state evidence codes). This proposed rule would cabin judicial discretion to admit non-DNA forensic evidence by barring prosecutorial introduction of such evidence in criminal trials absent a competing defense expert or …

Character Assassination: Amending Federal Rule Of Evidence 404(B) To Protect Criminal Defendants, Liesa L. Richter

Liesa L. Richter

Goldilocks And The Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter

Liesa L. Richter

"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain

Maine Law Review

Young children are frequently precluded from testifying at trial on the grounds of incompetency because they cannot answer questions about abstract concepts regarding “truth” and “lies.” In this situation, should the child’s earlier, out-of-court statements disclosing the abuse and identifying the abuser also be inadmissible? The stakes are huge. If young children cannot testify, and their out-of-court statements are precluded, they simply become safe prey, unprotected by the judicial system. The pivotal question becomes, are there procedures that can ensure fairness both to children and to their alleged abusers? This article argues that a child’s testimonial incapacity at trial ought …

Whether You Like It Or Not Your Likes Are Out: An Analysis Of Nonverbal Internet Conduct In The Hearsay Context, Olivia A. League

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Exemplary And Exceptional Confusion Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

This Article proposes that the final provisions of Rule 407 and 411, which provide a list of examples of permitted purposes for which a court may admit evidence, are asking for trouble--specifically, the trouble that courts will interpret the list not as examples, but as a specially enumerated, exhaustive list of exceptions.

Reality Check: A Modest Modification To Rationalize Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter

Liesa L. Richter

No abstract provided.