Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Procedure (29)
- Constitutional Law (25)
- Criminal Law (23)
- Administrative Law (17)
- Litigation (16)
-
- Courts (15)
- Civil Procedure (12)
- Law and Society (9)
- Legislation (9)
- Jurisprudence (8)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (7)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (6)
- Law and Psychology (6)
- Legal Remedies (6)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (5)
- Judges (5)
- Juvenile Law (5)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (5)
- Legal History (5)
- Science and Technology Law (5)
- State and Local Government Law (5)
- Medical Jurisprudence (4)
- Transportation Law (4)
- Civil Law (3)
- Computer Law (3)
- Disability Law (3)
- Rule of Law (3)
- Torts (3)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (47)
- Exclusionary rule (12)
- Searches and seizures (8)
- Testimony (8)
- Discovery (7)
-
- California (6)
- Fourth Amendment (6)
- Search (6)
- Administrative law (5)
- Crime (5)
- Criminal (5)
- Criminal Procedure (5)
- Criminal procedure (5)
- Privacy (5)
- Admissibility (4)
- Admissibility of evidence (4)
- Confidential communications (4)
- Constitution (4)
- Cross-examination (4)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (4)
- Hearsay (4)
- Jury (4)
- Law Enforcement (4)
- Litigation (4)
- Police (4)
- Seizure (4)
- Trial (4)
- Witness (4)
- Admissible evidence (3)
- Arbitration (3)
- Publication Year
Articles 91 - 92 of 92
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
The Sexual Assault Counselor-Victim Privilege: Jurisdictional Delay Into An Unclaimed Sanctuary, Armand Arabian
The Sexual Assault Counselor-Victim Privilege: Jurisdictional Delay Into An Unclaimed Sanctuary, Armand Arabian
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Lawyers Judging Experts: Oversimplifying Science And Undervaluing Advocacy To Construct An Ethical Duty?, David S. Caudill
Lawyers Judging Experts: Oversimplifying Science And Undervaluing Advocacy To Construct An Ethical Duty?, David S. Caudill
Pepperdine Law Review
My focus is on an apparent trend at the intersection of the fields of evidentiary standards for expert admissibility and professional responsibility, namely the eagerness to place more ethical responsibilities on lawyers to vet their proffered expertise to ensure its reliability. My reservations about this trend are not only based on its troubling implications for the lawyer’s duty as a zealous advocate, which already has obvious limitations (because of lawyers’ conflicting duties to the court), but are also based on the problematic aspects of many reliability determinations. To expect attorneys - and this is what the proponents of a duty …