Evidence Commons^™

How Experts View The Legal System's Use Of Scientific Evidence, Shari Seidman Diamond, Richard Lempert

Articles

Legal scholars and courts frequently write about how scientific evidence is vetted and presented in legal proceedings, but the views of experts themselves have received little attention. Our research aims to fill that gap. This paper reports some of what we learned from a series of surveys we conducted, beginning with a survey in 2016 of scientists who had been elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.3 Subsequent surveys were directed to subscribers of the journal Science who identified as scientists and engineers and to self-identified experts who advertised their availability as experts to lawyers or …

Identifying The Guilty, Protecting The Innocent: Amending The Federal Rules Of Evidence To Address Admissibility Of Eyewitness Identification, Louisa M. A. Heiny

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Mistaken eyewitness identification is among the most common factors in wrongful conviction cases. Indeed, hundreds of innocent defendants have been convicted for a crime they did not commit, their fate sealed by an eyewitness who convincingly, but mistakenly, testified, “That’s the one!”

Scientific researchers have documented the fallibility of eyewitness identification for decades. Their collective work has produced recommendations for eyewitness identification reform, focusing on procedural problems most likely to result in mistaken identification. The law in this area, however, has not kept pace with the science. Rather than representing a cohesive series of safeguards against inaccurate eyewitness identifications, federal …

Police Gatekeeping, Emily M. Poor

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

The role of policing in American society is more pervasive (and less visible) than many acknowledge. Police do not just patrol, arrest, and keep peace – they also gatekeep. Many and varied ostensibly non-criminal processes rely on police fact-finding to adjudicate claims, establish eligibility for resources, and take adverse action against individuals. This Article examines the phenomenon of police gatekeeping, both as a practical barrier to resources and remedies and as a hegemonic mechanism to construct the social conception of truth.

Recognizing the ways in which civil society relies upon police as gatekeepers of both practical resources and the social …

Understanding Federal Rule Of Evidence 104(B) On Building Walls And Missing Bricks, Len Niehoff, Shannon Hickey

Articles

We use individual pieces of evidence to construct our cases, recognizing that no one of them, taken in isolation, suffices to get the job done. As Professor McCormick famously said of evidence, “a brick is not a wall.” Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b) explains the logical relationship between those various pieces of evidence and how they help us build our proofs. Or perhaps we should say that the rule tries to explain it, without much success.

Let's Break Some Rules: Immodest Proposals For Evidence Reform, Len Niehoff

Articles

In 1975, when the American Bar Association launched LITIGATION, its editors dedicated the entirety of one of the journal's first issues to evidence. Authors included distinguished practitioners, respected judges, and academic giants like Margaret A. Berger, Irving Younger, and Jim McElhaney. Subjects varied, but the articles shared a common sensibility: The recently adopted Federal Rules of Evidence were a good thing.

Consensus And Conflict Over Context: Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The Supreme Court's 2024-25 Term, Eve Brensike Primus, Elena Schultz

Articles

In its 2024-2025 Term, the Supreme Court emphasized the utility—and necessity—of context-based, fact-sensitive analyses throughout its criminal law and procedure cases. Though the Justices sparred over how to derive meaning from factual, structural, legal, and historical contexts, they tended to agree that courts should not be artificially restricted from considering the breadth of the record before them.

The Needless Search For A Founding-Era "Hearsay" Definition, Jeffrey Bellin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Modern Confrontation Clause doctrine permits only unconfronted “out-of-court statements that would have been admissible in a criminal case at the time of the founding.” To operationalize this concept, the Supreme Court identifies “testimonial hearsay” as the Clause’s primary concern. Its opinions regularly dive into the historical record to refine what counts as “testimonial” but ignore that record in defining “hearsay.” This omission cannot last. Cases in the lower courts, and one on the Court’s recent docket, concern testimonial but (arguably) non-hearsay statements. And while confrontation jurisprudence is supposed to be tied to founding-era evidence law, the “hearsay” definition, casually referenced …

A Proposal To Replace The Hearsay Rules, Richard D. Friedman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This essay proposes a set of rules to replace entirely the 800 series of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the hearsay rules, with a very different, and relatively compact, set of procedural rules. (The current hearsay rules run over 3000 words; the proposed rules run under 1000.) The change will improve truth-determination, make trials more efficient, and better protect the rights of criminal defendants and other parties. There would, of course, be some adjustment period for lawyers and judges as they get accustomed to a different system, but I am confident that it would soon be easier to administer than …

A Law At War With Itself: Character Evidence And The Doctrine Of Chances, Len Niehoff, Shannon Hickey

Articles

Certain legal principles have raging within them a kind of civil war. Important but abstract policy concerns pull the doctrine in one direction; common sense and practical experience pull it in another. Casualties ensue.

Perhaps no body of legal doctrine better exemplifies this sort of internal conflict than the general ban on character evidence, as embodied in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1). That rule states: “Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with that character or trait.” The rule has deep roots in the …

Forfeiture By Wrongdoing In Domestic Homicide Cases: Where Are We Now?, Caren Myers Morrison

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

One of the few common law exceptions to the rule that every criminal defendant enjoys the right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him” is if the defendant has deliberately caused a witness’s unavailability. That a defendant could forfeit his confrontation rights through his own wrongdoing developed from the equitable concept that “no man shall profit from his wrong.” When the Supreme Court narrowed the common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing in Giles v. California, it seemed like it had dealt a serious blow to the prosecution of domestic homicide cases. Rather than being able to introduce …

Confrontation, The Legacy Of Crawford, And Important Unanswered Questions, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The right to confront has a long history. In the United States, the Confrontation Clause provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” One of the most troublesome areas of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been the Clause’s application to “hearsay statements offered against a criminal defendant pursuant to a hearsay exception or exemption[.]” The Supreme Court’s confrontation analysis in this situation once hinged on the statement’s reliability, with the traditional hearsay rule and its exceptions and exemptions as a guide. But in Crawford v. Washington, the Court considered …

Constructing Confrontation: Between Constitutional And Evidence Theory, Michael S. Pardo

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington was significant as a matter of both constitutional and evidence law. From a constitutional perspective, the opinion was significant because of its “original public meaning” approach to interpreting the text of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. From an evidentiary perspective, the opinion was significant in recognizing a doctrinal rule that potentially excludes evidence in criminal trials that would otherwise be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as well as State evidence laws. This Essay explores Crawford and the subsequent Confrontation Clause cases from these distinct perspectives—illuminated by constitutional and …

Reimagining Youngblood's Bad Faith Requirement: Safeguarding Criminal Defendants' Due Process Rights Through A Burden-Shifting Framework, Rita Elfarissi

Michigan Law Review

Criminal defendants face an uphill battle when attempting to prove that the government’s loss or destruction of evidence that could have played a significant role in their defense deprived them of their constitutional due process rights. To make this showing, the defendant must prove that the government lost or destroyed the evidence in bad faith. This requirement is problematic because direct evidence illustrating the subjective intent of the government officials who lost or destroyed the evidence is unlikely to exist, and in the off chance it does, the prosecution is unlikely to freely hand it over to the defendant. Thus, …

The Death Knell And The Wild West: Two Dangers Of Domestic Discovery In Foreign Adjudications, Shay M. Collins

Michigan Law Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), parties to foreign legal proceedings can obtain discovery orders from United States federal courts. In other words, if a foreign party needs physical evidence located in—or testimony from a person residing in—the United States to support their claim or defense, they can ask a district court to order the production of that evidence. For almost two decades, § 1782(a) practice has operated as a procedural Wild West. Judges routinely consider § 1782(a) applications ex parte—that is, without giving the parties subject to the resulting discovery orders a chance to oppose them—and grant those applications at …

Fact-Finding Without Rules: Habermas's Communicative Rationality As A Framework For Judicial Assessments Of Digital Open-Source Information, Matthew Gillett

Michigan Journal of International Law

Jürgen Habermas’s theory of “communicative rationality” (also known as “communicative action”) provides a promising conceptual apparatus through which to justify and validate the International Criminal Court’s consideration of the emerging phenomenon of digital open-source information. Because of its process-based and inclusive qualities, Habermas’s communicative rationality is particularly apposite for the dynamic nature of digital open-source information and the heterogenous range of actors and institutions which have relevant experiences and skills to contribute to the generation of norms and determinations regarding its role before the Court. This is important, as the International Criminal Court’s procedural framework is largely silent on digital …

The Securities Law Disclosure Conundrum For Publicly Traded Litigation Finance Companies, Robert F. Weber

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Article examines a peculiar legal dilemma—implicating securities law, legal ethics, and evidence law—that arises when litigation finance companies (LFCs) become public companies. LFCs provide funding to litigants and law firms for prosecuting lawsuits in exchange for a share of the lawsuit recoveries. In recent years, LFCs have significantly altered the landscape of the civil justice system in common law jurisdictions. But their assets, which are just rights to proceeds from lawsuits, are notoriously opaque— who really can predict what a jury will do when it comes to liability and damages? When LFCs go public, this opacity frustrates public investors’ …

When To Be Objectionable… And How Not To Be An Artless Clay-Brained Pignut, Leonard Niehoff

Articles

Having taught evidence for more than 30 years. I've become fairly good at predicting the questions students will ask, especially the questions that are hardest to answer. One of those typically comes after we've discussed how to object to evidence. We've worked through the basics: Stand up, speak up, say that you object, and briefly explain why. At this point a student almost always raises his or her and says something like this: "OK. I understand the how part. But when do I object?"

The Missing Algorithm: Safeguarding Brady Against The Rise Of Trade Secrecy In Policing, Deborah Won

Michigan Law Review

Trade secrecy, a form of intellectual property protection, serves the important societal function of promoting innovation. But as police departments across the country increasingly rely on proprietary technologies like facial recognition and predictive policing tools, an uneasy tension between due process and trade secrecy has developed: to fulfill Brady’s constitutional promise of a fair trial, defendants must have access to the technologies accusing them, access that trade secrecy inhibits. Thus far, this tension is being resolved too far in favor of the trade secret holder—and at too great an expense to the defendant. The wrong balance has been struck.

This …

United States V. Muhammad: Brief Of Evidence Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Richard D. Friedman

Appellate Briefs

Amici curiae teach, research, and write about the law of evidence. Amici share the view that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly remanded this case to the District Court for an in camera review of the Executive’s claim of the state secrets privilege.<\p>

The concept of “state secrets” is an evidentiary privilege. It is occasionally confused with other doctrines. Privileges are to be strictly construed and narrowly interpreted because they impede the search for truth. The state secrets privilege should not operate as a monarchal “Crown Privilege.” When courts are confronted with state secrets claims, …

Recollections Refreshed And Recorded, Len Niehoff

Articles

Witnesses forget stuff. When they do, the evidence rules give us two tools to help solve the problem. Lawyers call one "refreshed recollection" and the other "past recollection recorded," labels just similar enough to guarantee confusion. Nevertheless, these principles get at very different things and are well worth the effort necessary to distinguish and understand them. So how do we get there?

The Liar’S Mark: Character And Forfeiture In Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), Jesse Schupack

Michigan Law Review

Rule 609(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is an outlier. The Rule mandates admission of impeaching evidence of a witness’s past convictions for crimes of dishonesty. It is the only place in the Rules where judges are denied their usual discretion to exclude evidence on the grounds that its admission would be more prejudicial than probative. This Note analyzes three assumptions underlying this unusual Rule: (1) that there is a coherently definable category of crimes of dishonesty, (2) that convictions for crimes of dishonesty are uniquely probative of a person’s character, and (3) that an assessment of moral character …

Recollections Refreshed And Recorded, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

Witnesses forget stuff. When they do, the evidence rules give us two tools to help solve the problem. Lawyers call one "refreshed recollection" and the other "past recollection recorded," labels just similar enough to guarantee confusion. Nevertheless, these principles get at very different things and are well worth the effort necessary to distinguish and understand them.

So how do we get there?

Feigned Consensus: Usurping The Law In Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Prosecutions, Keith A. Findley, D. Michael Risinger, Patrick D. Barnes, Julie A. Mack, David A. Moran, Barry C. Scheck, Thomas L. Bohan

Articles

Few medico-legal matters have generated as much controversy--both in the medical literature and in the courtroom--as Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), now known more broadly as Abusive Head Trauma (AHT). The controversies are of enormous significance in the law because child abuse pediatricians claim, on the basis of a few non-specific medical findings supported by a weak and methodologically flawed research base, to be able to “diagnose” child abuse, and thereby to provide all of the evidence necessary to satisfy all of the legal elements for criminal prosecution (or removal of children from their parents). It is a matter, therefore, in …

Incorporating Social Science Into Criminal Defense Practice, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

In recent decades, social scientists have created a treasure trove of empirical and sociological data that defenders can and should use to help their clients. Evidence rules, criminal law, and criminal procedure are filled with concepts informed by social science. When is evidence likely to unfairly prejudice a defendant in the eyes of a jury? Do police interact differently with members of minority populations and how should that inform concepts of reasonableness? How easy or difficult is it for people to identify individuals they see during high-stress criminal episodes? How effective are police interrogation tactics at getting at the truth …

Proof At The Salem Witch Trials, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

As of the writing of this article, President Donald Trump's tweets have included roughly 400 references to "witch hunts." In a sense, this is unsurprising. The Salem witch trials have a special place in our national identity and vocabulary. Most Americans understand the reference, even if they know few of the historical details. And the phrase "witch hunt" serves as a useful shorthand for any frenzied chase after something that does not exist. The Salem trials also inspire a peculiar fascination: Perhaps no other site of deadly mass hysteria has become a major tourist destination.

Still, most practicing litigators probably …

New Juvenile Discovery Rules: Mandatory, Comprehensive, And Streamlined., Joshua B. Kay

Articles

The recently promulgated amendments and additions to the civil discovery rules include several changes affecting child protection and juvenile delinquency proceedings.1 The updates should make discovery in juvenile court matters more efficient by clarifying what is discoverable and requiring more timely exchange of information.

Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley

Michigan Law Review

Circuit courts are split on whether and to what extent the Daubert standard should apply at class certification. Potential plaintiffs believe that application of Daubert would make it nearly impossible to obtain class certification. For potential defendants, the application of the standard is an important way to ensure that the certification process is fair. This Note examines the incentives underlying the push to apply the Daubert standard at class certification and the benefits and drawbacks associated with that proposal. It proposes a solution that balances the concerns of both plaintiffs and defendants by focusing on three factors: the obstacles to …

Preface To The Third Edition By The General Editor. Preface To The New Wigmore: A Treatise On Evidence: Selected Rules Of Limited Admissibility, Richard D. Friedman

Other Publications

As General Editor of this treatise, my principal job is to recruit an excellent team of authors; no one in the modern day could hope to replicate John Henry Wigmore's one-man show. David Leonard, not only a superb scholar but also an exemplary person through and through, was one of the first people I asked, and to my delight he joined the project. He tackled his assignment with great ability and broad vision--and also graciousness in dealing with a slew of editorial comments from me. With a degree of efficiency and industry that can perhaps best be described in this …

General Editor's Introduction To The Treatise, Richard D. Friedman

Other Publications

There is a story -- recalled rather wistfully by an American in 1995, shortly after the thrashing of Young America by New Zealand's Black Magic -- that in 1851 Queen Victoria came to watch the first race for what became known as the America's Cup. “Who is leading?” she asked the signal master of the royal yacht. “The America,” came the reply. “Which boat is in second place?” the Queen wanted to know. The signal master replied: “There is no second, ma'am.'DD'

This story -- which, though perhaps apocryphal, has gained a life of its own -- captures perfectly the …

Do You See What I See? Problems With Juror Bias In Viewing Body-Camera Video Evidence, Morgan A. Birck

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, advocates and activists called for greater oversight and accountability for police. One of the measures called for and adopted in many jurisdictions was the implementation of body cameras in police departments. Many treated this implementation as a sign of change that police officers would be held accountable for the violence they perpetrate. This Note argues that although body-camera footage may be useful as one form of evidence in cases of police violence, lawyers and judges should be extremely careful about how it is presented to the jury. Namely, the …