Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Something Bad In Your Briefs, Richard H. Underwood
Something Bad In Your Briefs, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In a profession heavily driven by writing, plagiarism is an ethical issue that plagues the legal community. The legal profession generally views plagiarism as unethical, but often sends mixed messages by condemning it in some settings, but not others. In this short Commentary, Professor Underwood discusses the ethical implications of plagiarism in legal writing.
Ringers Revisited, Richard H. Underwood
Ringers Revisited, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In this short essay, Professor Underwood addresses an important development in the law dealing with eyewitness testimony and the New Jersey case of State v. Henderson. He gets at the subject by looking back to a 1950s television play starring fellow Kentucky resident, William Shatner. However, in this particular instance, William Shatner would not change the world.
Following The Rules: Exclusion Of Witness, Sequestration, And No-Consultation Orders, Richard H. Underwood
Following The Rules: Exclusion Of Witness, Sequestration, And No-Consultation Orders, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In this Article, Professor Underwood discusses the varying application of Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides for the exclusion of witnesses. He explains that varying application of Rule 615 and state evidence rules following Rule 615's language creates misunderstandings at trial. Thus, it is important to know not only the federal and local rules but also the "way things are done" in a particular court.
Making Stuff Up, Richard H. Underwood
Making Stuff Up, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Beginning with an article in this Journal almost thirty years ago, Professor Underwood continues to research and write about legal ethics and litigation. In this Commentary, he offers a witty look at several cases where, in his opinion, the judge allowed improper arguments to the jury.
Evaluating Scientific And Forensic Evidence, Richard H. Underwood
Evaluating Scientific And Forensic Evidence, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Professor Underwood offers a critique of the present state of scientific and forensic evidence. In the context of discussing four challenges to the field, the author arms the practitioner with strategies and tactics for making effective use of scientific and forensic testimony.
The Limits Of Cross-Examination, Richard H. Underwood
The Limits Of Cross-Examination, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In this article, the author compiles the history and methodology of cross-examination from ancient Greece to the modern era. The reality and ethics of cross-examination are explored through anecdotes and detailed histories.
"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood
"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In this article the author pulls together a history of expert witnesses in common law systems. Various issues are explored regarding expert witness testimony, including: the historical underpinnings of the practice, how Daubert controls that issue in modern times, rules of evidence, psychological science, and professional ethics.
Logic And The Common Law Trial, Richard H. Underwood
Logic And The Common Law Trial, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In this article, the author explores some of the inconsistencies between logic and the practice of law. The article draws together numerous anecdotes and examples of situations in which common sense was rejected or ignored in the name of legal procedure. The article focuses on various argument styles employed by lawyers.
Adversary Ethics: More Dirty Tricks, Richard H. Underwood
Adversary Ethics: More Dirty Tricks, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In this article the author provides a primer on the more common forms of cheating employed by trial lawyers. Another purpose is to suggest that there are antidotes that may be administered to curb these abuses, assuming that trial attorneys are alert enough to invoke them, and trial judges are willing to apply them.