Evidence Commons^™

Motions In Limine: Use And Consequences In Illinois, 26 J. Marshall L. Rev. 305 (1993), Robert G. Johnston, Thomas P. Higgins

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Forfeiture Of Property For Drug Offenders Under Illinois And Federal Statute: Zero Tolerance, Zero Exceptions, 25 J. Marshall L. Rev. 389 (1992), T. J. Hiles

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Standards Of Persuasion And The Distinction Between Fact And Law, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The invitation to respond in these pages to Gary Lawson's very interesting article, Proving the Law, was tempting enough. But what made it irresistible was Professor Lawson's comment that he is "addressing, with a brevity that borders on the irresponsible, subjects well beyond [his] depth." Now, that's the kind of debate I really like. Let me jump right in. A principal question raised by Lawson, which I find quite interesting, may be phrased in general, and purposefully ambiguous, terms as follows: Before an actor treats a proposition as a valid2 proposition of law, what standard of persuasion should that proposition …

Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

There are three ways in which stories may figure prominently at trials. First, litigants may tell stories to jurors. Not only is there some social science evidence that this happens, but trial lawyers have an instinctive sense that this is what they do. Ask a litigator to describe a current case and she is likely to reply, "Our story is ... " Second, jurors may try to make sense of the evidence they receive by fitting it to some story pattern. If so, the process is likely to feed back on itself. That is, jurors are likely to build a …

In Re Schildt, 90-Ca-119, 90-Ap-06 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Apr. 3, 1990), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a full hearing because the appellant was not allowed to enter evidence or present witnesses substantiating his claims, in violation of his right to due process.

Policing Discovery Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(C): A Search For Judicial Consistency, Kathleen M. Potocki

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Diminskis V. Chicago Transit Authority: Circumventing Expert Witness Discovery, Adrian M. Vuckovich

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Trower V. Jones: Expanding The Scope Of Permissible Cross-Examination Of Expert Witnesses, Julie A. Correll

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Campbell V. Greer: Impeaching Witnesses With Prior Conviction Evidence In A Civil Trial

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 26(B)(4) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure: Discovery Of Expert Information, James L. Hayes, Paul T. Ryder Jr.

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unsolved Problem In Taking Evidence Abroad: The Non-Rule Of Aerospatiale, William L. Wilks, Nancy E. Goldberg

Penn State International Law Review (1982 - 2011)

In the Aerospatiale decision, the United States Supreme Court attempts to define the powers of American courts to compel discovery from foreign litigants in those courts, in light of the Hague Evidence Convention. This article initially examines the various interpretations of the Convention used to solve the "apples/oranges" problem, encountered by litigants from different nations and incompatible jurisprudential systems, when they seek to obtain evidence located outside the U.S. or in the control of a foreign litigant. The Court's response to this problem is later addressed by an analysis of its decision, which seems to confuse the situation further, for …

The Collision Between New Discovery Amendments And Expert Testimony Rules, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The young litigator's nightmare was always the same. He was in medieval Europe, ready to engage in a sword fight with the expert swordsman representing his arch rival. After countless hours of preparation, he felt confident that he would be able to hold his own against the swordsman. But when the swordsman drew his lengthy rapier from its sheath, the young attorney pulled only a short dagger from his scabbard. Realizing that he was doomed to defeat, he tossed his dagger into the air and ran from the scene with the laughter of the onlookers ringing in his ears.

The …

Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

So many procedural doctrines appear, after research and teaching, to trifurcate. An obvious example is that kind of standard of decision known as the standard of proof: what in theory might have been a continuum of standards divides in practice into the three distinct standards of preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Other examples suggest both that I am not imagining the prominence of three and that more than coincidence is at work.

Part I of this essay describes the role of the number three in procedure, with particular regard to standards …

A Judicial Perspective On Expert Discovery Under Federal Rule 26(B)(4): An Empirical Study Of Trial Court Judges And A Proposed Amendment, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 377 (1987), David S. Day, Charvin Dixon

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Repuation And Character In Defamation Actions, Charles W. Ehrhardt

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The first state to adopt a constitution following the Declaration of Independence (New Jersey, 1776) guaranteed all criminal defendants the same ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ as their prosecutors. Fifteen years later, in enumerating the constitutional rights of accused persons, the framers of the federal Bill of Rights bifurcated what New Jersey called the ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ into two distinct but related rights: the Sixth Amendment right of the accused ‘‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’’ and his companion Sixth Amendment right to ‘‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’’ The distinction between witnesses ‘‘against’’ the accused and witnesses …

Extraterritorial Discovery Under The Hague Evidence Convention, Marguerite E. Trossevin

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Hearsay Rule, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The hearsay rule is a non constitutional rule of evidence which obtains in one form or another in every jurisdiction in the country. The rule provides that in the absence of explicit exceptions to the contrary, hearsay evidence of a matter in dispute is inadmissible as proof of the matter. Although jurisdictions define "hearsay" in different ways, the various definitions reflect a common principle: evidence that derives its relevance in a case from the belief of a person who is not present in court—and thus not under oath and not subject to cross-examination regarding his credibility—is of questionable probative value.

Federal Marital Privileges In A Criminal Context: The Need For Further Modification Since Trammel The

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Modern Evidence And The Expert Witness, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Allen V. The United States Of America: The “Substantial” Connection Between Nuclear Fallout And Cancer, Daniel Swartzman, Tom Christoffel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Passion: An Essay On Personality , Richard F. Devlin Frsc

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Passion is a cogently structured, compel Jingly argued and seductively enthralling masterpiece which, in years to come, will undoubtedly stand out as an inspirational source for many who seek social transformation. Unger's style, in this essay at least, is lucid and inviting. Substantively, Passion demonstrates not only the depth of his penetrating intellect but also his command of an array of' disciplines. Unger's polymathy is all the more impressive when we remember that ours is an era in which idiosyncratic specialization is the norm.

Fairness Vs. Trustworthiness: The Predecessor In Interest Controversy Of Rule 804(B)(L), Allen D. Haynie

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discovery In Kentucky: An Overview, Richard H. Underwood

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Clear Standards For Discovery Protective Orders: A Missed Opportunity In Rhinehart V. Seattle Times Co., Carole J. Breitenbach

Seattle University Law Review

The Washington State Supreme Court has previously balanced the interests of privacy and effective judicial administration against those of free speech and public access in the context of judicial proceedings, and the court missed a significant opportunity to expand and apply this balancing test in Rhinehart. The United States Supreme Court similarly declined to create a balancing test to ensure the full protection of First Amendment interests during pretrial discovery. A need remains for a general standard to ensure that First Amendment interests in disseminating discovery information are identified and protected when a protective order is requested.

Surveying Work Product, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Work product is the legal doctrine that central casting would send over. First, it boasts profundities, arising as it does from the colliding thrusts of our discovery and trial processes and from conflicting currents in our modified adversary system. Second, it will surface frequently, because the protected materials are commonly created by each side but uncommonly useful to the opponent. Third, it has generated a small mountain of lower-court case law, with the foothills forming a labyrinth of rules and wrinkles. In short, work product has for a couple of generations dramatically bewitched academics, bothered practitioners, and bewildered students.

Significant …

People V. Eichelberger: Police-Created Probable Cause As An Exigent Circumstance, 16 J. Marshall L. Rev. 457 (1983), Leslie B. Wulfsohn

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Corporate And Institutional Accident Investigations As Work Product Pursuant To The Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia, William Todd Benson

University of Richmond Law Review

If the magnitude of the mishap so warrants, many businesses immediately call their insurance adjuster or other accident investigator. In some of the larger businesses, accident investigation and insurance have become in-house operations. This quick reflex toward early fact investigation is prompted, in part, by a healthy respect for the potentiality of claims arising out of the day to day conduct of business affairs. When a suit against such company ultimately is ified and discovery sought, an issue often arises concerning whether early institutional investigations are "work product" for purposes of the federal or Virginia rules of civil procedure. This …

The Preclusiveness Of A Party's Testimony: Sixty Years Of Massie V. Firmstone In Virginia, Ann L. Hardy

University of Richmond Law Review

The rule that a party may rise no higher than his own testimony was first articulated in Virginia in Massie v. Firmstone. It has been criticized, misunderstood, and misapplied, but since its inception in 1922, it has grown into an important rule of evidence and procedure. The practitioner must consider the implications of the rule from the moment he begins to gather evidence that he expects to present in the form of live testimony.