Evidence Commons^™

Reassessing Damages In Securities Fraud Class Actions, Elizabeth C. Burch

ExpressO

No coherent doctrinal statement exists for calculating open-market damages for securities fraud class actions. Instead, courts have tried in vain to fashion common-law deceit and misrepresentation remedies to fit open-market fraud. The result is a relatively ineffective system with a hallmark feature: unpredictable damage awards. This poses a significant fraud deterrence problem from both a practical and a theoretical standpoint.

In 2005, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to clarify open-market damage principles and to facilitate earlier dismissal of cases without compensable economic losses. Instead, in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, it further confused the damage issue by (1) perpetuating the …

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

The “Csi Effect”: Better Jurors Through Television And Science?, Michael D. Mann

ExpressO

This Comment discusses how television shows such as CSI and Law & Order create heightened juror expectations. This will be published in the Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal's 2005-2006 issue.

Dostoyevsky And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Confession, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2006), Amy D. Ronner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Priestly Class: Reflections On A Journalist's Privilege, William E. Lee

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Bayes' Law, Sequential Uncertainties, And Evidence Of Causation In Toxic Tort Cases, Neal C. Stout, Peter A. Valberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Judges are the gatekeepers of evidence. Arguably, the most difficult duty for a judicial gatekeeper is to screen the reliability of expert opinions in scientific fields such as medicine that are beyond the ken of most judges. Yet, judges have a duty to scrutinize such expert opinion evidence to determine its reliability and admissibility. In toxic tort cases, the issue of causation-whether the alleged exposures actually caused the plaintiffs injury-is nearly always the central dispute, and determining admissibility of expert causation opinion is a daunting challenge for most judges. We present a comprehensive review of the courts' struggles with the …

Long-Term Solutions For Children In The Child Welfare System: Families For Teens, Alexandra Lowe

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article advocates for the Families for Teens Initiative, which focuses on engaging teenagers in the foster care system to identify and connect with family resources that are often overlooked. The initiative aims to prevent poor outcomes such as homelessness and incarceration by emphasizing the importance of maintaining family connections and providing normal developmental opportunities for teens.

Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty Of Deliberately Disregarding, Chris Guthrie, Andrew J. Wistrich

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Due process requires courts to make decisions based on the evidence before them without regard to information outside of the record. Skepticism about the ability of jurors to ignore inadmissible information is widespread. Empirical research confirms that this skepticism is well founded. Many courts and commentators, however, assume that judges can accomplish what jurors cannot. This Article reports the results of experiments we have conducted to determine whether judges can ignore inadmissible information. We found that the judges who participated in our experiments struggled to perform this challenging mental task. The judges had difficulty disregarding demands disclosed during a settlement …

Identifying The Linguistic Boundaries Of Sex: Court Language Choice In Decisions Regarding The Availability Of Sex And Procreation, Amy Zimmerman Hodges

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Crawford Surprises: Mostly Unpleasant, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Crawford v. Washington should not have been surprising. The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The doctrine of Ohio v. Roberts, treating the clause as a general proscription against the admission of hearsay-except hearsay that fits within a "firmly rooted" exception or is otherwise deemed reliable-had so little to do with the constitutional text, or with the history or principle behind it, that eventually it was bound to be discarded. And the appeal of a testimonial approach to the clause seemed sufficiently strong to yield high hopes that ultimately the …

Contaminating The Verdict: The Problem Of Juror Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Judges As Film Critics: New Approaches To Filmic Evidence, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

This Article exposes internal contradictions in case law deciding the use and admissibility of film as evidence. Based on a review of more than ninety state and federal cases dating from 1923 to the present, the Article explains how the source of these contradictions is the frequent miscategorization of film as "demonstrative evidence," that category of evidence that purports to illustrate other evidence rather than to be directly probative of some fact at issue. The Article further demonstrates how these contradictions are based on two venerable jurisprudential anxieties. One is the concern about the growing trend toward replacing the traditional …

Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

In this Article, Professor Sharfman addresses the problem of "discretionary valuation": that courts resolve valuation disputes arbitrarily and unpredictably, thus harming litigants and society. As a solution, he proposes the enactment of "valuation averaging," a new procedure for resolving valuation disputes modeled on the algorithmic valuation processes often agreed to by sophisticated private firms in advance of any dispute. He argues that by replacing the discretion of judges and juries with a mechanical valuation process, valuation averaging would cause litigants to introduce more plausible and conciliatory valuations into evidence and thereby reduce the cost of valuation litigation and increase the …

Remedying Judicial Foot-In-Mouth Disease: Nevada's Prohibitions Against Judicial Commentary On Evidence And The Rule Of Harmless Error, Andrew F. Dixon

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

What Is "Common" About Common Sense?: Cautionary Tales For Travelers Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries, Marilyn Maccrimmon

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Conjunction And Aggregation, Saul Levmore

Michigan Law Review

This Article begins with the puzzle of why the law avoids the issue of conjunctive probability. Mathematically inclined observers might, for example, employ the "product rule," multiplying the probabilities associated with several events or requirements in order to assess a combined likelihood, but judges and lawyers seem otherwise inclined. Courts and statutes might be explicit about the manner in which multiple requirements should be combined, but they are not. Thus, it is often unclear whether a factfinder should assess if condition A was more likely than not to be present - and then go on to see whether condition B …

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court reformed the jury trial process by allowing civil jurors to discuss the evidence presented during trial prior to their formal deliberations. This Article examines the theoretical, legal, and policy issues raised by this reform and presents the early results of a field experiment that tested the impact of trial discussions. Jurors, judges, attorneys, and litigants in civil jury trials in Arizona were questioned regarding their observations, experiences, and reactions during trial as well as what they perceived to be the benefits and drawback of juror discussions. The data revealed that the majority of judges …

An Outsider's View Of Common Law Evidence, Roger C. Park

Michigan Law Review

same line by a Newton. There have been improvements since Bentham's jeremiad. But Anglo-American evidence law is still puzzling. It rejects the common-sense principle of free proof in favor of a grotesque jumble of technicalities. It has the breathtaking aspiration of regulating inference by rule, causing it to exalt the foresight of remote rulemakers over the wisdom of on-the-spot adjudicators. It departs from tried-and-true practices of rational inquiry, as when it prohibits courts from using categories of evidence that are freely used both in everyday life and in the highest affairs of state. Sometimes it seems to fear dim light …

Blinded By Science: How Judges Avoid The Science In Scientific Evidence, Erica Beecher-Monas

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Preface, Norman L. Greene

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pragmatism And Realism, Hilary Putnam

Cardozo Law Review

Let me begin by asking what will undoubtedly seem to many, if not all of you, a most peculiar question: How did it happen that the first philosopher to present a completely worked out version of direct realism in the entire history of modem philosophy was none other than the American pragmatist, William James?

Discovering Who We Are: An English Perspective On The Simpson Trial, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay surveys three major transformations in state and federal rules of evidence since the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules have not only inspired a movement toward codification in the states, they have also liberalized the admission of expert testimony and hearsay. This partially explains thirteen states' reluctance to codify. Judges have furthered this trend by admitting far more discretionary hearsay evidence than Congress intended. Professor Rossi doubts this expansion of the hearsay exceptions would have occurred without the adoption of the FRE and suggests that the newly formed Advisory Committee will produce greater substantive changes …

Some Implications Of Daubert And Its Potential For Misuse: Misapplication To Environmental Tort Cases And Abuse Of Rule 706(A) Court-Appointed Experts, Ellen Relkin

Cardozo Law Review

This Commentary will address an array of issues underlying and emerging from the disputes in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its inevitable progeny, from a practitioner's perspective representing plaintiffs in toxic tort litigation. It is intended to provide real examples that debunk the quaint but unrealistic notion that science is pure and insulated from economics and politics, the propagandized suggestion that it is the plaintiff's expert who promotes "fringe" or "junk" science, and the belief that epidemiology is the sine qua non of proving causation of a disease. It will also address the potential perils of the …

Table Of Contents - Cardozo Law Review, Volume 15, Issues 6-7

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Should Federal Evidence Rules Trump State Tort Policy? The Federalism Values Daubert Ignored, Michael H. Gottesman

Cardozo Law Review

I want to explore issues that the Supreme Court should have addressed in Daubert but did not. The Court decided that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") assigns a "gatekeeping" function to federal trial judges, who are to exclude expert scientific opinions that do not meet a standard of "reliability" vaguely sketched out in the Court's opinion.

The Daubert case involved exclusively state substantive law issues and was in federal court only because the defendant removed it from state court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The Court held the gatekeeping function applicable in diversity actions, …

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 …

Impeachment By Conviction Evidence: Judicial Discretion And The Politics Of Rule 609, Victor Gold

Cardozo Law Review

No provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence has sparked more controversy than Rule 609, which deals with the admissibility of convictions to impeach a witness. When first proposed, the provision was the subject of fierce debate, sparking repeated revision during its drafting and while it was under consideration by Congress. Ultimately, no one side in this legislative battle prevailed entirely; the Rule strikes a compromise between sharply conflicting policies. The text of Rule 609, incorporating no less than three balancing tests, two references to fairness, one to justice, and several other undefined terms, leaves the task of resolving the …