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 571 - 600 of 766
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Rule 408: Compromise And Offers To Compromise
Rule 901: Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification
Rule 901: Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rule 1001: The "Original Document" Rule
Rule 601: General Rule Of Competency
Rule 803(1): Present Sense Impression
Rule 804(B)(1): Former Testimony
Rule 803(8)(C): Public Records And Reports
Opening The Door To The Grand Jury: Abandoning Secrecy For Secrecy's Sake, George Edward Dazzo
Opening The Door To The Grand Jury: Abandoning Secrecy For Secrecy's Sake, George Edward Dazzo
University of the District of Columbia Law Review
The grand jury in the United States is hailed by its proponents as an indispensable buffer of protection from malicious and unfounded prosecution by the State. Critics, however, liken the investigatory body to a rubber stamp of the prosecutor, analogous to early English grand jurors who were subject to the influences of the Monarch. Criticism of the grand jury often focuses on the grand jury's potential for oppression rather than protection of the individual.' In particular, it is the secrecy of the grand jury that sparks the most debate.'
The Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures And The French Experience, Florence Sophie Boreil
The Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures And The French Experience, Florence Sophie Boreil
LLM Theses and Essays
Under the American approach to criminal justice, freedom of the individual is of the utmost importance. The American criminal justice system reflects a distrust of abuse of power and an emphasis on protection of personal freedom. However, the French take a contrary approach; under French law, freedom is achieved through the State. This paper examines the protection of individuals’ rights in American and French criminal procedure. Focus will be given to tracking the police investigatory powers in each country through searches and seizures, and the impact that those powers have on individuals’ rights. This paper will assert that the police …
Incoming Drug Calls And Performative Words: They're Not Just Talking About It, Baron Parke!, Christopher B. Mueller
Incoming Drug Calls And Performative Words: They're Not Just Talking About It, Baron Parke!, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
No abstract provided.
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.
On The Relevance Of The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: Tort System Outcomes Are Principally Determined By Lawyers’ Rates Of Return, Lester Brickman
On The Relevance Of The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: Tort System Outcomes Are Principally Determined By Lawyers’ Rates Of Return, Lester Brickman
Cardozo Law Review
The attention generated by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reflects the perceived importance of the issue of the admissibility of scientific evidence in tort litigation. In products liability litigation, whether claimants prevail often depends upon expert testimony presented on the issue of causation. Unless a claimant is able to have the expert's testimony admitted, there will be little or no chance of prevailing. Thus, though it is disputed whether Daubert will extend or contract tort liability, it is undisputed that its importance lies in its impact on the scope of tort liability.
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.
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 …
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?
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 …
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.
A Brief Look At New York's Efforts To Codify Its Law Of Evidence, Barbara C. Salken
A Brief Look At New York's Efforts To Codify Its Law Of Evidence, Barbara C. Salken
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Title Vii Pretext Question: Resolved In Light Of St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks, Robert J. Smith
The Title Vii Pretext Question: Resolved In Light Of St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks, Robert J. Smith
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Character Evidence, James L. Kainen
Coconspirator Statements And Former Testimony In New York And Federal Courts With Some Comments On Codification, Randolph N. Jonakait
Coconspirator Statements And Former Testimony In New York And Federal Courts With Some Comments On Codification, Randolph N. Jonakait
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Expert Testimony, Barry C. Scheck
Trances, Trials, And Tribulations, Gary M. Shaw
Trances, Trials, And Tribulations, Gary M. Shaw
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court Rules On Statements Against Interest, Michael M. Martin
The Supreme Court Rules On Statements Against Interest, Michael M. Martin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Symposium Comparing New York And Federal Evidence Law: Introduction, Honorable George C. Pratt
Symposium Comparing New York And Federal Evidence Law: Introduction, Honorable George C. Pratt
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Federal Rule Of Evidence 407: Should It Apply To Products Liability?, Patricia A. Brass
Federal Rule Of Evidence 407: Should It Apply To Products Liability?, Patricia A. Brass
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Death And Transfiguration Of Frye, Richard D. Friedman
The Death And Transfiguration Of Frye, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The rule of Frye v. United States was seventy years old, and had long dominated American law on the question of how well established a scientific principle must be for it to provide the basis for expert testimony. Even after the passage of the Federal Rules of Evidence, several of the federal circuits, as well as various states, purported to adhere to Frye's "general acceptance" standard. But now, unanimously, briefly, and with no apparent angst, the United States Supreme Court has held in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that the Frye rule is incompatible with the Federal Rules.