Evidence Commons^™

Evidence: 1996-1997 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Traps & Problem Issues, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Negative Effects Of Expert Testimony On The Battered Women's Syndrome, Pamela Posch

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Law In The Backwaters: A Comment Of Mirjan Damaška's Evidence Law Adrift, Samuel R. Gross

Reviews

The most problematic part of Professor Mirjan Damaška's fine book is the title.' Professor Damaška does an excellent job of situating American evidence law in the procedural context in which American trials occur. He identifies three major procedural elements. First, juries are traditionally cited as the primary or sole explanation for our extensive set of exclusionary rules, which are said to express mistrust of lay adjudicators. Professor Damaška points out as well that lay juries permit a divided court, with a professional judge who has exclusive control over "questions of law," and that this division is necessary for the operation …

1996 Oregon Evidence: Trial Techniques, Developments, And Ethics, Oregon Law Institute, Linda K. Eyerman, Gayle L. Troutwine, Michael R. Shinn, Ancer L. Haggerty, Chris Kitchel, Jan K. Kitchel, Jeffrey S. Jones, Leslie S. Johnson, Barrie J. Herbold, John R. Faust Jr.

Oregon Law Institute, 1996

Course Materials from the November 22, 1996 Program in Portland

Lex, Lies & Videotape, Greg Jones

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The After-Acquired Evidence Rule: The Best Of All Possible Worlds?, Sharona Hoffman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Allocating The Burden Of Proof In Sales Litigation, Alex Stein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Medical Desk Book For Lawyers, Oregon Law Institute, D. Lawrence Wobbrock, David K. Miller, Richard E. Talbott, Peter C. Richter, Steven P. Jones, David C. Landis, Gayle L. Troutwine, Robert P. Jones, Robert J. Neuberger, Robert W. Pardington, David K. Miller, Larry N. Sokol, William A. Barton

Oregon Law Institute, 1996

No abstract provided.

Third-Party Modification Of Protective Orders Under Rule 26©, Patrick S. Kim

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that similarly situated litigants always should be given access to protected discovered materials, while nonlitigants should gain access to protected materials only in exceptional circumstances. This approach effectively balances the privacy and property interests of the original parties and the intervening parties with the interests of adjudicative efficiency. Part I establishes that there is no general public right of access to civil discovery and that courts should disregard such purported rights when considering whether to modify a protective order. Part II identifies three interests that courts should weigh when considering whether to modify a protective order: the …

Defending Duii Charges, Oregon Law Institute, Clarence E. Lankins, William Uhle, Robert G. Thuemmel, John Henry Hingson Iii, Erin K. Olson, Michael H. Marcus, John Powers, Nancy L. Macklin, Douglas A. Brown, Edward Jones, Frederick Lenzser

Oregon Law Institute, 1995

Course Materials from the October 6, 1995 Program in Portland

"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this article the author pulls together a history of expert witnesses in common law systems. Various issues are explored regarding expert witness testimony, including: the historical underpinnings of the practice, how Daubert controls that issue in modern times, rules of evidence, psychological science, and professional ethics.

The Flexible Doctrine Of Spoliation Of Evidence; Cause Of Action, Defense, Evidentiary Presumption And Discovery Sanction, Robert L. Tucker

Akron Law Faculty 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 …

Techniques And Tactics In Personal Injury Trials, Oregon Law Institute, Jodie Anne Bushman, Jeffrey S. Mutnick, Frank A. Moscato, Stephen F, English, Bruce R. Powell, Robert D. Dames Jr., Diana I. Stuart, Gerald C. Doblie, Craig C. Murphy, Judy D. Snyder

Oregon Law Institute, 1995

Course Materials from the April 14, 1995 Program in Portland

Black Rage: The Illegitimacy Of A Criminal Defense, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 205 (1995), Kimberly M. Copp

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidentiary Use (And Misuse) Of The Civil Defendant's Financial Status, Karen M. Grundy

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Intellectual Coherence In An Evidence Code, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Evidence (Federal Rules or Rules) were created in large part to promote uniformity and predictability in federal trials by providing a relatively instructive guide for judges and lawyers concerning the admissibility of evidence. As with any codification, success in this respect requires, among other things, that there be a considerable degree of intellectual coherence among the code's various provisions. The Federal Rules fall short of intellectual coherence in a number of areas. They contain contradictory and inconsistent mandates that do not make theoretical sense and therefore accord the trial judge almost unlimited discretion in these areas. …

Junk Science, Daubert, And Ohio Rule 702, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Confrontation Issues In Child Abuse Cases, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Polygraph Evidence: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Polygraph Evidence: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

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.

The Proper Role Of After-Acquired Evidence In Employment Discrimination Litigation, Rebecca White, Robert D. Brussack

Scholarly Works

A new defense to employment discrimination claims has gained acceptance in the lower courts. Employers who allegedly have discriminated against their employees because of race, sex or age are winning judgments on the basis of after-acquired evidence of employee misconduct. The evidence is “after-acquired” in the sense that the misconduct was unknown to the employer at the time the alleged discrimination occurred but was acquired later, often through the use of discovery devices in the employee's discrimination action. Lower courts have accepted the proposition that if the employer would have discharged the plaintiff on the basis of the after-acquired evidence, …

Evidence, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Toward A Liberal Application Of The "Close Of All The Evidence" Requirement Of Rule 50(B) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure: Embracing Fairness Over Formalism, Rollin A. Ransom

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the language and purposes of rule 50 to determine if and when a relaxed application of its requirements is appropriate. Part I considers the terms and goal of the rule and concludes that its purpose is to put the party opposing the motion for judgment as a matter of law on notice of the movant's assertion that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, and to provide the opposing party an opportunity to "cure." Part II discusses courts' varying application of the requirement that a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at …

“Junk Science”: The Criminal Cases, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Rape Trauma Syndrome & Child Sexual Abuse Syndrome, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Chicken Little's Revenge: Strict Judicial Scrutiny Of Scientific Evidence, Scott Charles Walker

Cleveland State Law Review

This note focuses on the current controversy over admissibility standards for novel scientific testimony. It will trace the development of legal standards for expert witness admissibility from the common law through the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence and to the current trend of strict judicial scrutiny. In addition, this note will analyze the issues before the United States Supreme Court in Daubert and will argue, in spite of indications to the contrary, that the Court should not be too quick to continue tightening the judicial noose on scientific experts. Finally, this note will dispute the utility of amending …

Transport Modeling – Technical And Legal Issues, Adrian Brown

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

27 pages.

Contains footnotes.