Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (204)
- University of Michigan Law School (130)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (44)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (35)
- University of Colorado Law School (25)
-
- UIC School of Law (22)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (20)
- Cornell University Law School (17)
- Pepperdine University (15)
- St. Mary's University (12)
- University of Georgia School of Law (11)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (10)
- Brooklyn Law School (9)
- Georgia State University College of Law (9)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (9)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (9)
- William & Mary Law School (9)
- University of Maine School of Law (8)
- BLR (7)
- Georgetown University Law Center (7)
- University of Richmond (7)
- Duke Law (6)
- Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University (6)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (6)
- Brigham Young University Law School (5)
- Fordham Law School (5)
- North Carolina Central University School of Law (5)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (5)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (5)
- Pace University (4)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (112)
- Testimony (66)
- Courts (49)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (49)
- Witnesses (47)
-
- Admissibility (44)
- United States Supreme Court (36)
- Sixth Amendment (35)
- Confrontation Clause (32)
- Cross-examination (32)
- Witness (28)
- Hearsay (24)
- Police (22)
- Supreme Court (21)
- Discovery (19)
- Expert testimony (19)
- Judges (19)
- Juries (19)
- Reliability (19)
- Constitution (18)
- Federal courts (18)
- Jury (18)
- Law (18)
- Crawford v. Washington (17)
- Federal (15)
- Evidence law (14)
- Expert evidence (13)
- New York (13)
- New York Evidence (13)
- Trial (13)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (201)
- Michigan Law Review (66)
- Touro Law Review (43)
- Articles (41)
- UIC Law Review (21)
-
- Cardozo Law Review (19)
- Indiana Law Journal (16)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (15)
- Faculty Scholarship (15)
- Faculty Publications (14)
- Publications (14)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (14)
- Pepperdine Law Review (11)
- Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17) (11)
- Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal (9)
- Georgia State University Law Review (9)
- Maine Law Review (8)
- Georgia Law Review (7)
- ExpressO (6)
- Faculty Articles (6)
- Faculty Working Papers (6)
- Faculty Works (6)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (6)
- Scholarly Works (6)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (6)
- University of Richmond Law Review (6)
- BYU Law Review (5)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (5)
- North Carolina Central Law Review (5)
- Scholarly Articles (5)
- Publication Type
Articles 511 - 540 of 766
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Danger At The Edge Of Chaos: Predicting Violent Behavior In A Post-Daubert World, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Ril
Danger At The Edge Of Chaos: Predicting Violent Behavior In A Post-Daubert World, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Ril
Law Faculty Research Publications
No abstract provided.
Crawford V. Washington, Richard D. Friedman
Crawford V. Washington, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
On June 9, by granting certiorari in Crawford v. Washington, 02-9410, the Supreme Court signaled its intention to enter once again into the realm of the Confrontation Clause, in which it has found itself deeply perplexed. This time there was a difference, however, because the grant indicated that the Court might be willing to rethink its jurisprudence in this area. Crawford, like Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986), and Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999), presents a classic case of what might be called station-house testimony. Michael Crawford was accused of stabbing another man. His wife, Sylvia, was …
Minimizing The Jury Over-Valuation Concern (Visions Of Rationality In Evidence Law Symposium), Richard D. Friedman
Minimizing The Jury Over-Valuation Concern (Visions Of Rationality In Evidence Law Symposium), Richard D. Friedman
Articles
A great deal of the rhetoric of evidence discourse concerns the supposed cognitive inadequacies of the jury. In various contexts we are told that although an item of evidence is probative, it must be excluded because the jury will give it too much weight. I believe this approach has played far too great a role in evidentiary law, and that it is an interesting project to see whether we can construct a satisfactory body of law without relying at all on the cognitive inadequacy argument. I think that, at least to a large extent, we can. In some settings, where …
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.
The Role Of Workplace Culture Evidence In Hostile Workplace Environment Sexual Harassment Litigation: Does Title Vii Mean New Management Or Just Business As Usual?, Christopher Massaro
The Role Of Workplace Culture Evidence In Hostile Workplace Environment Sexual Harassment Litigation: Does Title Vii Mean New Management Or Just Business As Usual?, Christopher Massaro
NYLS Law Review
No abstract provided.
Nullification At Work? A Glimpse From The National Center For State Courts Study Of Hung Juries, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans
Nullification At Work? A Glimpse From The National Center For State Courts Study Of Hung Juries, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans
Faculty Publications
In 1998, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the National Center for State Courts ("NCSC") to examine the frequency and various causes of hung juries. One of the factors that the NCSC project staff investigated was jurors' perceptions of the fairness of the law they were asked to apply in felony trials as well as jury and case characteristics that are often associated with jury nullification. The project also asked judges and other court actors to rate the strength of the evidence in the case. Thus, the project enabled researchers to examine jurors' views, the evidence, and …
Daubert Asks The Right Questions: Now Appellate Courts Should Help Find The Right Answers, Christopher B. Mueller
Daubert Asks The Right Questions: Now Appellate Courts Should Help Find The Right Answers, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
No abstract provided.
Confrontation As A Hot Topic: The Virtues Of Going Back To Square One, Richard D. Friedman
Confrontation As A Hot Topic: The Virtues Of Going Back To Square One, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
I have been working so obsessively on the accused's right to confront the witnesses against him 1 that I am gratified that the organizers of this conference have designated confrontation as one of the "hot topics" of Evidence law. I am not so egotistical as to think that my work has made confrontation into a hot topic; I am just glad to know that I am working where a good deal of action is, and that other scholars recognize that confrontation is an important area in which dramatic changes may be occurring.
Squeezing Daubert Out Of The Picture, Richard D. Friedman
Squeezing Daubert Out Of The Picture, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this essay, I will offer some thoughts on how we might reframe the issues governing the admissibility of expert evidence. My principal focus is not on any particular type of expert evidence but on broader questions: the extent to which we ought to rely on rulings of admissibility, the standards that should govern admissibility rulings, and the role of the trial and appellate courts in making those rulings. To some extent, I will concentrate on the context of criminal cases, but for the most part my conclusions apply in both civil and criminal litigation. Here are my conclusions: First, …
In Defense Of The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule (Law And Truth - The Twenty-First Annual National Student Federalist Society Symposium On Law And Public Policy - 2002), Yale Kamisar
Articles
think Dean Pye's advice about casebook writing was sound,6 and what he had to say also applies to discussions and debates about such issues as the search and seizure exclusionary rule. We cannot (at least we should not) begin with Mapp v. Ohio. We need a prelude.
Proposed Amendments To Fed. R. Crim. P. 26: An Exchange: Remote Testimony - A Prosecutor's Perspective, Lynn Helland
Proposed Amendments To Fed. R. Crim. P. 26: An Exchange: Remote Testimony - A Prosecutor's Perspective, Lynn Helland
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Although the Supreme Court has declined, for now, to endorse the Judicial Conference proposal to add a Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to permit live video testimony under limited circumstances, I agree with Professor Friedman that the matter is far from over. This is both because the potential benefits to be realized from the use of remote video testimony are too large to ignore and because, on closer inspection, any Confrontation Clause concerns that might underlie the Court's hesitation to adopt the proposal are not warranted. My purpose in writing is to summarize some of the …
Respecting Pandora's Box, Erica Beecher-Monas
Respecting Pandora's Box, Erica Beecher-Monas
Law Faculty Research Publications
No abstract provided.
Mitigation Evidence And Capital Cases In Washington: Proposals For Change, Mary Pat Treuthart, Anne Branstad, Matthew Kite
Mitigation Evidence And Capital Cases In Washington: Proposals For Change, Mary Pat Treuthart, Anne Branstad, Matthew Kite
Seattle University Law Review
Part II of this article examines the United States Supreme Court's recognition of the importance of mitigation evidence in capital cases. Part III then focuses on the role of mitigation evidence in Washington's death penalty scheme. The following section, Part IV, addresses the public policy implications when mitigation evidence is not presented. Finally, Part V proposes changes to the current sentencing procedure in Washington involving capital crimes.
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 …
Dial-In Testimony, Richard D. Friedman, Bridget Mary Mccormack
Dial-In Testimony, Richard D. Friedman, Bridget Mary Mccormack
Articles
For several hundred years, one of the great glories of the common law system of criminal justice has been the requirement that prosecution witnesses give their testimony in the presence of the accused" face to face," in the time-honored phrase-under oath, subject to cross-examination, and, unless unfeasible, in open court. In the United States, this principle is enshrined in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." But now a new way is developing for witnesses for the prosecution …
Expert Testimony On Fingerprints: An Internet Exchange, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Jennifer Mnookin, Dale Nance, Michael Saks
Expert Testimony On Fingerprints: An Internet Exchange, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Jennifer Mnookin, Dale Nance, Michael Saks
Articles
In United States v. Llera Plaza, 188 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Pa. 2002), a federal district initially limited expert opinion testimony on fingerprint identifications because the government was unable to show that such identifications were sufficiently valid and reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Then, the court withdrew the opinion. This article reproduces an exchange of notes on the initial opinion submitted by five law professors.
Proposed Amendments To Fed. R. Crim. P. 26: An Exchange: Remote Testimony, Richard D. Friedman
Proposed Amendments To Fed. R. Crim. P. 26: An Exchange: Remote Testimony, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Recently, the Supreme Court declined to pass on to Congress a proposed change to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26 submitted to it by the Judicial Conference. In this Article, Professor Friedman addresses this proposal, which would allow for more extensive use of remote, video-based testimony at criminal trials. He agrees with the majority of the Court that the proposal raised serious problems under the Confrontation Clause. He also argues that a revised proposal, in addition to better protecting the confrontation rights of defendants, should include more definite quality standards, abandon its reliance on the definition of unavailability found in …
The Conundrum Of Children, Confrontation, And Hearsay, Richard D. Friedman
The Conundrum Of Children, Confrontation, And Hearsay, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The adjudication of child abuse claims poses an excruciatingly difficult conundrum. The crime is a terrible one, but false convictions are abhorrent. Often the evidence does not support a finding of guilt or innocence with sufficient clarity to allow a decision free of gnawing doubt. In many cases, a large part of the problem is that the prosecution's case depends critically on the statement or testimony of a young child. Even with respect to adult witnesses, the law of hearsay and confrontation is very perplexing, as anyone who has studied American evidentiary law and read Supreme Court opinions on the …
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 …
Artificial Intelligence, Mindreading, And Reasoning In Law, John A. Barnden, Donald M. Peterson
Artificial Intelligence, Mindreading, And Reasoning In Law, John A. Barnden, Donald M. Peterson
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Explaining Relevance, Paolo Garbolino
Daubert's Backwash: Litigation-Generated Science, William L. Anderson, Barry M. Parsons, Drummond Rennie
Daubert's Backwash: Litigation-Generated Science, William L. Anderson, Barry M. Parsons, Drummond Rennie
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
In the 1993 landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court articulated its position on the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court reasoned that federal judges should rely on the processes scientists use to identify unreliable research, including the process of peer review, to determine when scientific evidence should be inadmissible. In response, lawyers and their clients, seeking to rely on such evidence, have begun funding and publishing their own research with the primary intention of providing support to cases they are litigating. This Article examines the phenomenon of litigation-generated science, how it potentially undermines …
Convicting The Innocent Beyond A Reasonable Doubt: Some Lessons About Jury Instructions From The Sheppard Case, Lawrence Solan
Convicting The Innocent Beyond A Reasonable Doubt: Some Lessons About Jury Instructions From The Sheppard Case, Lawrence Solan
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker
Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker
Articles
Constitutional law scholars have long observed that many doctrinal rules established by courts to protect constitutional rights seem to "overprotect" those rights, in the sense that they give greater protection to individuals than those rights, as abstractly understood, seem to require.' Such doctrinal rules are typically called "prophylactic" rules.2 Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, example of such a rule is Miranda v. Arizona,' in which the Supreme Court implemented the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination4 with a detailed set of directions for law enforcement officers conducting custodial interrogations, colloquially called the Miranda warnings. 5
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
This article attempts to define the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. The article begins by distinguishing the three types of appellate review. It then focuses on review of discretion. Articles written by Professors Maurice Rosenburg, Robert C. Post, and Judge Henery J. Friendly are next analyzed in order to further evaluate judicial discretionary decisionmaking. Caselaw is next used to discuss how courts have attempted to define and apply the abuse of discretion standard. Primary cases considered include Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Pierce v. Underwood, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., and Koon v. United States. Finally, …
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 …
Dna As Evidence: Viewing Science Through The Prism Of The Law, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman
Dna As Evidence: Viewing Science Through The Prism Of The Law, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this article, we analyze a problem related to DNA evidence that is likely to be of great and increasing significance in the near future. This is the problem of whether, and how, to present evidence that the suspect has been identified through a DNA database search. In our view, the two well-known reports on DNA evidence issued by the National Research Council (NRC) have been badly mistaken in their analysis of this problem. The mistakes are significant because the reports have carried great authority with American courts; moreover, the DNA Advisory Board of the FBI has endorsed the second …
The Second Circuit's Attack On Jury Nullification In United States V. Thomas: In Disregard Of The Law And The Evidence, Ran Zev Schijanovich
The Second Circuit's Attack On Jury Nullification In United States V. Thomas: In Disregard Of The Law And The Evidence, Ran Zev Schijanovich
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
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, …