Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Evidence (112)
- Criminal Procedure (64)
- Criminal Law (52)
- Constitutional Law (51)
- State and Local Government Law (36)
-
- Judges (33)
- Litigation (31)
- Supreme Court of the United States (31)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (26)
- Civil Procedure (23)
- Jurisprudence (23)
- Law and Society (19)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (19)
- Legal Profession (15)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (15)
- Fourth Amendment (14)
- Legal History (14)
- Science and Technology Law (14)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (13)
- Jurisdiction (12)
- Civil Law (11)
- Juvenile Law (11)
- Legal Remedies (11)
- Legislation (10)
- Fourteenth Amendment (9)
- Legal Education (9)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (8)
- Legal Writing and Research (8)
- Institution
-
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (43)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (13)
- University of Michigan Law School (11)
- Pepperdine University (8)
- BLR (7)
-
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (6)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (5)
- St. Mary's University (4)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (4)
- Cleveland State University (3)
- Georgetown University Law Center (3)
- New York Law School (3)
- Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University (3)
- Seattle University School of Law (3)
- University of Georgia School of Law (3)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (3)
- University of Richmond (3)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (3)
- American University Washington College of Law (2)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (2)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (2)
- University of Kentucky (2)
- University of Maine School of Law (2)
- University of Missouri School of Law (2)
- University of San Diego (2)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (2)
- West Virginia University (2)
- William & Mary Law School (2)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (41)
- Cardozo Law Review (12)
- ExpressO (6)
- Pepperdine Law Review (6)
- Faculty Working Papers (5)
-
- Articles (4)
- Faculty Scholarship (4)
- Cleveland State Law Review (3)
- Faculty Publications (3)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (3)
- Indiana Law Journal (3)
- NYLS Law Review (3)
- Seattle University Law Review (3)
- Supreme Court Case Files (3)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (3)
- All Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (2)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (2)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (2)
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (2)
- Maine Law Review (2)
- Popular Media (2)
- Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals (2)
- Scholarly Works (2)
- St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics (2)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (2)
- University of Richmond Law Review (2)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (2)
- West Virginia Law Review (2)
- Appellate Briefs (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 91 - 120 of 168
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Wrongful Convictions And The Accuracy Of The Criminal Justice System, H. Patrick Furman
Wrongful Convictions And The Accuracy Of The Criminal Justice System, H. Patrick Furman
Publications
No abstract provided.
Virtual Cross-Examination: The Art Of Impeaching Hearsay, John G. Douglass
Virtual Cross-Examination: The Art Of Impeaching Hearsay, John G. Douglass
Law Faculty Publications
Trial lawyers and judges are quite accustomed to courtroom battles over the admissibility of hearsay. But relatively few have much experience at challenging the credibility of hearsay. Once hearsay is admitted in evidence, even the ablest advocates typically proceed as if the hearsay battle were over, at least until the appeal. Few lawyers take advantage of the opportunities available to impeach the hearsay declarant. Consider the perspective of one experienced trial judge: I sometimes wonder at what seems to me the passing up of golden opportunities by the able advocate. Foremost among these lost opportunities is the virtual total neglect …
Narrative Relevance, Imagined Juries, And A Supreme Court Inspired Agenda For Jury Research, Richard O. Lempert
Narrative Relevance, Imagined Juries, And A Supreme Court Inspired Agenda For Jury Research, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
This paper has its roots in Old Chief v. United States, a case the Supreme Court of the United States decided in 1997. I will begin by describing this case; then comment on its implications for the Supreme Court’s conception of the jury, and conclude by examining the agenda one may draw from it for empirical jury research. Old Chief arose when Johnny Lynn Old Chief was charged not only with assault with a dangerous weapon and using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, but also with violating a law that forbids convicted felons from possessing …
Merging Technology With Justice: How Electronic Courtrooms Shape Evidentiary Concerns, Nicole J. De Sario
Merging Technology With Justice: How Electronic Courtrooms Shape Evidentiary Concerns, Nicole J. De Sario
Cleveland State Law Review
This Note will explore the evidentiary issues raised by the Electronic Courtroom, state how they are presently handled, and highlight the need for the adaptation of the Rules to allow for the smooth integration of such technology into the courtroom. Part I explains why the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts began funding Electronic Courtrooms and how they have grown in numbers. Part II gives details about the type of equipment typically employed in the Electronic Courtroom, using Courtroom 575 as a case study. The observable impacts of technology on a trial also will be noted. Part III contains an …
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Modifying The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence—A Separation Of Powers Issue, Robert G. Lawson
Modifying The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence—A Separation Of Powers Issue, Robert G. Lawson
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
How do you modify laws that simultaneously exist as statutes and rules of court? For reasons that are described elsewhere and need not be repeated here, the Kentucky Rules of Evidence (K.R.E.) came into existence through concurrent enactment by the General Assembly and Kentucky Supreme Court and thus are endowed with all the attributes of both statutes and rules of court. So, how do you change them when the inevitable need to do so arises, a question made both interesting and difficult by the fact that there is no institutional mechanism for concurrent lawmaking by the General Assembly and supreme …
Confidentiality, Privilege And Rule 408: The Protection Of Mediation Proceedings In Federal Court, Charles W. Ehrhardt
Confidentiality, Privilege And Rule 408: The Protection Of Mediation Proceedings In Federal Court, Charles W. Ehrhardt
Scholarly Publications
No abstract provided.
Attorney-Client Privilege When The Client Is A Public Official: Litigating The Opening Act Of The Impeachment Drama, Timothy K. Armstrong
Attorney-Client Privilege When The Client Is A Public Official: Litigating The Opening Act Of The Impeachment Drama, Timothy K. Armstrong
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
The divided panel decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in /n re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 466 (1998), represented a dramatic shift in that court's thinking on the question whether the attorney-client privilege protects what a government official says to his agency's counsel in confidence. Although the court of appeals in at least four previous decisions had held that a government agency client holds the same privilege any other client would under like circumstances to communicate with counsel in private, the Lindsey court took a quite different view.
Interpretation Of The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence—What Happened To The Common Law?, Robert G. Lawson
Interpretation Of The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence—What Happened To The Common Law?, Robert G. Lawson
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
The Kentucky Rules of Evidence, which became effective on July 1, 1992, dramatically transformed the method by which lawyers and judges address evidence issues. Before the adoption of the Rules, the law of evidence consisted mostly of a vast collection of common law rulings, accumulated over two centuries and inaccessible to lawyers and judges for all practical purposes. In addressing an evidence issue, participants had to first deal with the problem of "finding" the law-distilling from a morass of conflicting common law precedents the ones applicable to the issue at hand, a task regularly producing contention rather than agreement and, …
Narrative Relevance, Imagined Juries, And A Supreme Court Inspired Agenda For Jury Research, Richard O. Lempert
Narrative Relevance, Imagined Juries, And A Supreme Court Inspired Agenda For Jury Research, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
This paper has its roots in Old Chief v. United States, a case the Supreme Court of the United States decided in 1997. I will begin by describing this case; then comment on its implications for the Supreme Court's conception of the jury, and conclude by examining the agenda one may draw from it for empirical jury research. Old Chief arose when Johnny Lynn Old Chief was charged not only with assault with a dangerous weapon and using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, but also with violating a law that precludes convicted felons from possessing …
Some Thoughts On The Evidentiary Aspects Of Technologically Produced Or Presented Evidence, Fredric I. Lederer
Some Thoughts On The Evidentiary Aspects Of Technologically Produced Or Presented Evidence, Fredric I. Lederer
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Jaffee V. Redmond: Towards Recognition Of A Federal Counselor-Battered Woman Privilege, Fernando Laguarda, Michael B. Bressman
Jaffee V. Redmond: Towards Recognition Of A Federal Counselor-Battered Woman Privilege, Fernando Laguarda, Michael B. Bressman
Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals
No abstract provided.
Rule 801(D)(1): Prior Statement By Witness
Rule 901: Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification
Rule 901: Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rule 408: Compromise And Offers To Compromise
Rule 609: Impeachment By Evidence Of Conviction Of Crime
Rule 609: Impeachment By Evidence Of Conviction Of Crime
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rule 803(8)(C): Public Records And Reports
Calmer Seas: The Supreme Court's Major Criminal Law Rulings Of The 1993-94 Term, William E. Hellerstein
Calmer Seas: The Supreme Court's Major Criminal Law Rulings Of The 1993-94 Term, William E. Hellerstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Conflict Resolution In The Courts: The Role Of Science, Anthony Z. Roisman
Conflict Resolution In The Courts: The Role Of Science, Anthony Z. Roisman
Cardozo Law Review
This Article is a philosophical examination of an issue that now engages many lawyers and scientists-the proper role of science in courtroom litigation. More specifically, the issue is this: In cases where expert testimony is useful to lay jurors in resolving factual issues, what is the proper role of a judge in restricting what sorts of experts can testify and what they can say?
After Daubert: Going Forward With Lessons From The Past, Marc S. Klein
After Daubert: Going Forward With Lessons From The Past, Marc S. Klein
Cardozo Law Review
Ground zero in the ongoing battle over scientific evidence in toxic tort cases has clearly shifted in light of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In that case, the Supreme Court settled at least two profound issues. One has immediate practical consequences, the other has important philosophical implications.
Experts, Liars, And Guns For Hire: A Different Perspective On The Qualification Of Technical Expert Witnesses, Christopher P. Murphy
Experts, Liars, And Guns For Hire: A Different Perspective On The Qualification Of Technical Expert Witnesses, Christopher P. Murphy
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Check Your Crystal Ball At The Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring The Past, Understanding The Present, And Worrying About The Future Of Scientific Evidence, David L. Faigman, Elise Porter, Michael J. Saks
Check Your Crystal Ball At The Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring The Past, Understanding The Present, And Worrying About The Future Of Scientific Evidence, David L. Faigman, Elise Porter, Michael J. Saks
Cardozo Law Review
Since the earliest days of the use of expert witnesses, judges (and more recently legislatures) have struggled to design the juridical intersection where law and science cross paths. The effort has not met with notable success. This situation could be changing, however. Last term, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court adopted a novel approach to the age-old problem of scientific evidence. The -Court determined that the Federal Rules of Evidence require scientific evidence to be scientifically valid before it enters the courtroom. The Court has served notice that experts should trade in their crystal balls …
The Meaning Of Daubert And What That Means For Forensic Science, Randolph N. Jonakait
The Meaning Of Daubert And What That Means For Forensic Science, Randolph N. Jonakait
Cardozo Law Review
Daubert's effect on forensic science is unclear because the opinion is unclear. The Daubert Court did start blazing a useful path by stating that before scientific testimony is admitted, the trial court must be convinced that "the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and ... that [the] reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." But the Court's trailblazing was incomplete and often misleading.
The Supreme Court’S View Of Science: Has Daubert Exorcised The Certainty Demon?, Bert Black
The Supreme Court’S View Of Science: Has Daubert Exorcised The Certainty Demon?, Bert Black
Cardozo Law Review
The Supreme Court's mandate in Daubert that experts who give testimony based on science must confine themselves to valid scientific knowledge seems tautologically obvious, and hardly an issue requiring the attention of the nation's nine highest judges. The debate that led to Daubert was generated, however, by opponents of judicial screening who argued that holding experts to scientific standards somehow imposes an undue burden of proof on plaintiffs, especially in toxic tort cases - and the Supreme Court's decision has not put the issue completely to rest. Science, according to this "relaxed standards" argument, demands certainty far beyond the law's …
Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Epistemiology And Legal Process, Margaret G. Farrell
Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Epistemiology And Legal Process, Margaret G. Farrell
Cardozo Law Review
Justice Blackmun's majority opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. acknowledges that law and science have different goals, but it fails to recognize the implications of those differences for legal process. Recent increases in the scientifically-based claims brought in the federal courts, and in the size and complexity of the litigation in which such claims are made, have raised the stakes in the debate. At the same time, scientific concepts of relativity, uncertainty, and multiple causation are at odds with simple, legal notions about fact-finding and cause and effect. This disparity between legal and scientific understandings over the admission …
Character Evidence, James L. Kainen