Evidence Commons^™

Video: Adding To Your Case: Examining And Cross Examining Expert Witnesses, Michael J. Dale, Kathryn Webber, Valerie B. Barnhart Esq., Jack L. Harari M.D., J.D., F.A.A.E.M.

NSU Law Seminar Series

Learn skills for using expert witness testimony at trial: Developing strategy for selecting topics and order of presentation Using proper form of questioning on direct and cross Understanding rules of evidence, procedure, and ethics Two role play demonstrations help you learn techniques

To Discovery And Beyond: A Comprehensive Look At Argentina’S Data Protection Laws, Sean Mccleary

University of Miami Inter-American Law Review

This article strives to shed light on the interplay between discovery practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Argentina's data protection laws, and the ever-present possibility of discovery sanctions. For all intents and purposes, data protections laws serve as a double-edged sword that seek to protect an individual's privacy; however, data protection laws were not designed with litigation in mind. And because of that, it can be difficult for an Argentine company to comply with a discovery request that would implicate an individual's data privacy under Argentine law. In the end, it comes down to a balancing test. This …

New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta

Brooklyn Law Review

In civil litigation, the big business of retaining experts has raised concerns about the integrity of the adversarial process and undermined the role that expert testimony plays at trial. Due to a rising demand for expert testimony, it is common for the same expert to testify for opposing clients. When a client hires an expert who has been previously retained by that client’s adversary, a conflict of interest arises. Such experts may share confidential information with their new client to the detriment of the former client—triggering the expert disqualification test for conflicts of interest. Most state and federal courts do …

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

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Crossing The Line: Daubert, Dual Roles, And The Admissibility Of Forensic Mental Health Testimony, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals often testify as forensic experts in civil commitment and criminal competency proceedings. When an individual clinician assumes both a treatment and a forensic role in the context of a single case, however, that clinician forms a dual relationship with the patient—a practice that creates a conflict of interest and violates professional ethical guidelines. The court, the parties, and the patient are all affected by this conflict and the biased testimony that may result from dual relationships. When providing forensic testimony, the mental health professional’s primary duty is to the court, not to the patient, …

Colorado Rule Of Evidence 502: Preserving Privilege And Work Product Protection In Discovery, Christopher B. Mueller, Ronald J. Hedges, Lino S. Lipinsky

Publications

No abstract provided.

2015 Survey Of Rhode Island Law: Cases And Public Laws Of Note, Roger Williams University Law Review Staff

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Voir Dire: Strategy And Tactics In The Defense Of Social And Political Activists, Murray R. Bowes

Akron Law Review

With the courts increasingly being the forum for legal disputes between those who demand change in the superstructure and those who represent (or are) the structure, a rather unfortunate by-product has evolved: a feeling that the courts can no longer adequately dispense justice.8 This manifests itself in beliefs that if one is prosecuted for activities that were designed to advance social change, either in violation of the law or not, that the individual will not be afforded a fair trial; 9 a reflection that the social or political activist will not be judged by an impartial jury….For the purposes of …

Dangerous Diagnoses, Risky Assumptions, And The Failed Experiment Of "Sexually Violent Predator" Commitment, Deirdre M. Smith

Faculty Publications

In its 1997 opinion, Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law that reflected a new model of civil commitment. The targets of this new commitment law were dubbed “Sexually Violent Predators” (SVPs), and the Court upheld indefinite detention of these individuals on the assumption that there is a psychiatrically distinct class of individuals who, unlike typical recidivists, have a mental condition that impairs their ability to refrain from violent sexual behavior. And, more specifically, the Court assumed that the justice system could reliably identify the true “predators,” those for whom this unusual and extraordinary deprivation of liberty …

Six Summary Judgment Safeguards, Edward Brunet

Akron Law Review

This article sets forth a more optimistic assessment of the current status of summary judgment. Numerous potential safeguards deter improper grants of summary judgment motions and serve to temper trial judges who are prone to rule favorably on summary judgment requests. While some of the safeguards act more as ineffectual clichés or slogans, others provide a set of significant deterrents to overly adventuresome treatment of Rule 56 motions. The goal of this article is to critique six possible summary judgment safeguards and, in so doing, to determine whether the state of contemporary summary judgment is as bleak as leading critics …

Obtaining International Judicial Assistance Under The Federal Rules And The Hague Convention On The Taking Of Evidence Abroad In Civil And Commercial Matters: An Exposition Of The Procedures And A Practical Example: In Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract Litigation, Robert J. Augustine

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Is Limited Remand Required If The District Court Admitted Or Excluded Evidence Without A Daubert Analysis?, Robert B. Gilbreath

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Determining When Extrinsic Evidence Not Attached To Or Incorporated By Reference In A Pleading May Be Considered On A Rule 12 Dismissal Motion, Laurence A. Steckman, Rita D. Turner

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"New Wine In An Old Bottle": The Advent Of Social Media Discovery In Pennsylvania Civil Litigation Matters, Daniel E. Cummins

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Amending Rape Shield Laws: Outdated Statutes Fail To Protect Victims On Social Media, 48 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1087 (2015), Sydney Janzen

UIC Law Review

This Comment will first discuss the discoverability and admissibility of social media evidence in criminal and/or civil sexual assault cases. Section II(A) provides a broad overview of both federal and state rape shield laws, including the legislative policies behind their enactments, as well as the modern expansion of social media in the context of the legal system. Section II(B) will address the modern utility of social media in the context of the legal system. Section III first analyzes how courts look at discoverability and admissibility of social media evidence generally, and then focuses on sexual assault cases specifically. Further, Section …

Posnerian Hearsay: Slaying The Discretion Dragon, Liesa L. Richter

Faculty Articles

Distinguished jurist and scholar, Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit penned a concurrence in United States v. Boyce, 742 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2014), in which he launched a scathing attack on the scheme of categorical hearsay exceptions embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence. After characterizing the existing hearsay regime as bad “folk psychology,” Judge Posner called for the repeal of categorical hearsay exceptions in favor of case-by-case determinations about the “reliability” of particular hearsay statements by trial judges. Prior to adoption of the Federal Rules, evidence experts debated whether a …

Capping E-Discovery Costs: A Hybrid Solution To E-Discovery Abuse, Karel Mazanec

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Summary Of L.V. Dev. Assocs. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 37, Ryan Becklean

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether NRS 50.125 applies to depositions.

Chapter 623: Giving The Wrongfully Convicted A Better Chance At Review, Natasha Machado

McGeorge Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mixed Signals On Summary Judgment, Howard Wasserman

Faculty Publications

This essay examines three cases from the Supreme Court’s October Term 2013 addressing the standards for summary judgment. In one case, the Court affirmed summary judgment against a civil-rights plaintiff, in a continued erroneous over-reliance on the certainty of video evidence. In two other cases, the Court rejected the grant of summary judgment against civil-rights plaintiffs, arguably for the first time in quite a while. This essay unpacks the substance and procedure underlying all three decisions and considers the effect of the three cases and what signals they send to lower courts and litigants about the proper approach to summary …

The Misbegotten Judicial Resistance To The Daubert Revolution, David E. Bernstein

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article reviews the history of the evolution of the rules for the admissibility of expert testimony since the 1980s, the revolutionary nature of what ultimately emerged, and the consistent efforts by recalcitrant judges to stop or roll back the changes, even after Rule 702 was amended to explicitly incorporate a strict interpretation of those changes.

Part I reviews the law of expert testimony through the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision. Critics had charged for decades that the adversarial system was a failure with regard to expert testimony. Parties to litigation, they argued, often presented expert testimony of dubious validity because …

Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellant, James Townsend V. Midland Funding, Llc, Stuart Robert Cohen, Peter A. Holland

Court Briefs

The Consumer Protection Clinic of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, filed a Motion to Participate and an Amicus Brief in the case of Townsend v. Midland Funding, LLC. The case presents the question of whether documents created by third party predecessors in interest—usually a bank—may be admitted into evidence when a debt buyer plaintiff does not demonstrate personal knowledge regarding any of the foundational elements which would be required to admit the documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Amici urge the Court to overturn the lower court, and hold that a …

Book Review: Errol Morris, “A Wilderness Of Error”: Provocative But Unpersuasive, Richard C. Cahn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Dicta Attacks: Elliott V. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Joanna E. Barnes

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Predictive Coding: Emerging Questions And Concerns, Charles M. Yablon, Nick Landsman-Roos

Articles

Technology-assisted review-also referred to as "predictive coding," "computer-aided review," and "content-based advanced analytics"-is the most important development in e-discovery to have occurred in some time. While technical characterizations of the process vary largely because of differences across software platforms, basically predictive coding is a process whereby computers are programmed to search large quantities of documents using complex algorithms to mimic the document selection process of a knowledgeable, human document review. It is said to do such a review faster and without many of the dangers of human error. Because of its speed and accuracy, it has been described as a …

There But For The Grace Of God Go I: The Right Of Cross-Examination In Social Security Disability Hearings , Bradley S. Dixon

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Comment On The Proposed Amendment To Evidence Rule 801(D)(1)(B), Liesa L. Richter

Other Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Aviation Accident Reports By Civil Litigants: The Historical Development Of 49 U.S.C. Section 1441(E), Walter A. T. Welch Jr., John E. Faulk

Pepperdine Law Review

When aviation accidents occur, the National Transportation Safety Board conducts an investigation to determine the conditions, circumstances, and ultimately the probable cause of the accident. There is a federal statutory privilege which renders these reports, as well as testimony from the attending investigator, inadmissible as evidence in any suit or action arising from the accident. However, certain judicially created exceptions have arisen which permit portions of the report and certain investigator testimony to be admitted into evidence. The authors delineate and analyze these exceptions as they discuss the trend toward increased report and testimony admissibility. The authors conclude with a …

Mediation Confidentiality: For California Litigants, Why Should Mediation Confidentiality Be A Function Of The Court In Which The Litigation Is Pending?, Rebecca Callahan

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The article presents information on mediation confidentiality. Confidentiality protections are available to California litigants depending on whether the litigants are in state or federal court. It depicts that California courts provide protection only when disputants utilize mediation for resolving their differences and also focuses on the evidence exclusion provision in which the privilege held by participant acts as bar to compel discovery without everyone's consent.

Death Of Paradox: The Killer Logic Beneath The Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The prevailing but contested view of proof standards is that factfinders should determine facts by probabilistic reasoning. Given imperfect evidence, they should ask themselves what they think the chances are that the burdened party would be right if the truth were to become known; they then compare those chances to the applicable standard of proof.

I contend that for understanding the standards of proof, the modern versions of logic — in particular, fuzzy logic and belief functions — work better than classical probability. This modern logic suggests that factfinders view evidence of an imprecisely perceived and described reality to form …