Evidence Commons^™

Rethinking Jurisdictional Discovery Under The Hague Evidence Convention, Kathleen B. Gilchrist

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

When a federal court in the United States compels the discovery of information located abroad to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the defendant, the court can apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Hague Evidence Convention. This Note argues that the approach taken by most courts--applying the balancing test formulated by the Supreme Court in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court and favoring application of the Federal Rules--is misguided. Courts should apply the Evidence Convention more often in jurisdictional discovery disputes. They can do so under the existing legal framework with one of three holdings: …

Scientific Evidence As Foreign Law, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Most contemporary debates about scientific evidence focus on admissibility under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. That bias is quite understandable-after all, it is the framework imposed by the United States Supreme Court. Daubert, however, rests on a fundamental assumption: that courts should treat scientific facts like any other adjudicative facts ultimately left to the jury. Perhaps the involvement of specialized knowledge requires judges to act as gatekeepers to ensure some basic level of reliability, but under Daubert, scientific facts are still just facts. As I will argue, scientific facts fit awkwardly into the conventional framework for conceptualizing and …

Not Guilty By Reason Of Neuroimaging: The Need For Cautionary Jury Instructions For Neuroscience Evidence In Criminal Trials, E. Spencer Compton

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Neuroimaging technology gives researchers the ability to see structures and functions of the human brain. As the technology advances, it is beginning to change the way the legal field understands the brain and its impact on legal concepts of capacity, sanity, guilt, and innocence. However, the sophisticated technology poses risks that juries will misunderstand the limits of the science or misapply the technical findings to a particular case. To combat the risk of undue prejudice, this Note proposes a cautionary jury instruction designed to remind jurors of the technical and legal limits of bringing neuroimages into the courtroom.

A Practical Solution To The Reference Class Problem, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The "reference class problem" is a serious challenge to the use of statistical evidence that arguably arises every day in wide variety of cases, including toxic torts, property valuation, and even drug smuggling. At its core, it observes that statistical inferences depend critically on how people, events, or things are classified. As there is (purportedly) no principle for privileging certain categories over others, statistics become manipulable, undermining the very objectivity and certainty that make statistical evidence valuable and attractive to legal actors. In this paper, I propose a practical solution to the reference class problem by drawing on model selection …

Will Quants Rule The (Legal) World?, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Professor Ian Ayres, in his new book, Super Crunchers, details the brave new world of statistical prediction and how it has already begun to affect our lives. For years, academic researchers have known about the considerable and at times surprising advantages of statistical models over the considered judgments of experienced clinicians and experts. Today, these models are emerging all over the landscape. Whether the field is wine, baseball, medicine, or consumer relations, they are vying against traditional experts for control over how we make decisions. For the legal system, the take-home of Ayres's book and the examples he describes is …

An Indirect-Effects Model Of Mediated Adjudication: The Csi Myth, The Tech Effect, And Metropolitan Jurors' Expectations For Scientific Evidence, Hon. Donald E. Shelton, Young S. Kim, Gregg Barak

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Part I of this article defines the "CSI effect," a phrase has come to have many different meanings ascribed to it. It emphasizes the epistemological importance of first describing the effect of the "CSI effect" as observed in juror behavior documented in a new study conducted in Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan, and then looking at causative factors that may be related to an explanation of those observed effects. Part II describes the methodology of the Wayne County study, provides a descriptive analysis of Wayne County jurors, and compares the jurors demographically to the Washtenaw County jurors who were surveyed in …

Law, Statistics, And The Reference Class Problem, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Statistical data are powerful, if not crucial, pieces of evidence in the courtroom. Whether one is trying to demonstrate the rarity of a DNA profile, estimate the value of damaged property, or determine the likelihood that a criminal defendant will recidivate, statistics often have an important role to play. Statistics, however, raise a number of serious challenges for the legal system, including concerns that they are difficult to understand, are given too much deference from juries, or are easily manipulated by the parties' experts. In this preview piece, I address one of these challenges, known as the "reference class problem," …

How The Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article spotlights the flawed analytical framework at the heart of the federal courts' approach to one of the most controversial trial practices in American criminal jurisprudence - the admission of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of defendants who testify. As the Article explains, the flawed approach is a byproduct of the courts' reliance on a five-factor analytical framework to implement the governing legal standard enacted by Congress in Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Tracing the evolution of the five-factor framework from its roots in pre-Rule 609 case law, the Article demonstrates that the courts' reinterpretation of the framework …

The Individualization Fallacy In Forensic Science Evidence, Michael J. Saks, Jonathan J. Koehler

Vanderbilt Law Review

Forensic identification science involves two fundamental steps. The first step is to compare a questioned item of evidence to an exemplar from a known source and judge whether they appear so alike that they can be said to match. The second step is to assess the meaning of that reported match: What is the probability that the questioned and the known originated from the same source?

Different risks of error are present at each step. The risk of error in the first step is that a reported match between a questioned and a known sample might not really match. Even …

Experts, Mental States, And Acts, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article, written for a symposium on "Guilt v. Guiltiness: Are the Right Rules for Trying Factual Innocence Inevitably the Wrong Rules for Trying Culpability?," argues that the definition of expertise in the criminal justice system, derived in the federal courts and in most states from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Co., should vary depending on whether the issue involved is past mental state or past conduct. While expert psychological testimony about past acts ought to be based on scientifically verifiable assertions, expert psychological testimony about subjective mental states relevant to criminal responsibility need not meet the same threshold. This …

Independent Judicial Research In The "Daubert" Age, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court's Daubert trilogy places judges in the unenviable position of assessing the reliability of often unfamiliar and complex scientific expert testimony. Over the past decade, scholars have therefore explored various ways of helping judges with their new gatekeeping responsibilities. Unfortunately, the two dominant approaches, which focus on doctrinal tests and external assistance mechanisms, have been largely ineffective. This Article advocates for a neglected but important method for improving scientific decision making-independent judicial research. It argues that judges facing unfamiliar and complex scientific admissibility decisions can and should engage in independent library research to better educate themselves about the …

The Perils Of Evidentiary Manipulation, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The use of evidentiary rules to achieve substantive goals strikes me as a Faustian bargain, and, given Bierschbach and Stein's acknowledgedly tentative position, I hope to dissuade them of the virtues of the practice. My goal therefore is to explore briefly the potential dark side of specialized evidentiary rules. The concerns of injecting substantive goals into evidence law extend far beyond the narrow legitimacy concerns Bierschbach and Stein raise. It is not simply the question of whether we aspire to a pluralistic or majority-take-all democratic society. Rather, evidentiary manipulation threatens the legitimacy of criminal and evidence law... Bierschbach and Stein's …

Should Judges Do Independent Research On Scientific Issues?, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Judges are deeply divided about the issue of independent research, which goes to the heart of their roles and responsibilities in the legal system. To many judges, doing independent research when confronted with new and unfamiliar material seems the most responsible and natural thing to do. To others, it represents the worst kind of overreaching and a threat to long-cherished adversarial values. But whether one supports the practice or not, one thing is clear. The issue of independent research deserves far greater attention than it has so far from jurists, academics, and practitioners alike.

Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

For over twenty years, and particularly since the Supreme Court's Daubert' decision in 1993, much ink has been spilled debating the problem of scientific evidence in the courts. Are jurors or, in the alternative, judges qualified to assess scientific reliability? Do courts really need to be concerned about "junk science"? What mechanisms can promote better decision making in scientific cases? Even a cursory scan of the literature shows the recent explosion of interest in these issues, precipitating new treatises, hundreds of articles, and countless conferences for judges, practitioners, and academics.

Warping The Rules: How Some Courts Misapply Generic Evidentiary Rules To Exclude Polygraph Evidence, John C. Bush

Vanderbilt Law Review

Polygraph tests rely on the hypothesis that a subject's body yields physiologically different symptoms if he or she is lying.' When a polygraph test is administered, a mechanical apparatus records the subject's physiological changes, and the polygrapher conducting the examination interprets the data. The techniques for measuring physiological changes vary in their foci, which may include respiration, blood pressure, cardiovascular function, and skin resistance. The polygraph apparatus records changes to one or more of these foci, and a technician, or polygrapher, then analyzes the results to conclude whether the subject has been truthful.

Polygraph results factor into choices ranging from …

A Study Of Juror Expectations And Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does The "Csi Effect" Exist?, Hon. Donald E. Shelton, Young S. Kim, Gregg Barak

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This article is the first empirical study of jurors designed to investigate the existence and extent of the "CSI effect." The authors conducted a survey of 1027 persons who had been called for jury duty in a Michigan state court during a nine-week period in June, July and August, 2006. This survey examined the summoned jurors' demographic information, television viewing habits, their expectations that the prosecutor would produce scientific evidence and whether they would demand scientific evidence as a condition of a guilty verdict.

This study of juror expectations and demands about scientific evidence in relationship to other types of …

Dangerousness And Expertise Redux, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Civil commitment, confinement under sexual predator laws, and many capital and noncapital sentences depend upon proof of a propensity toward violence. This Article discusses the current state of prediction science, in particular the advantages and disadvantages of clinical and actuarial prediction, and then analyzes how the rules of evidence should be interpreted in deciding whether opinions about propensity should be admissible. It concludes that dangerousness predictions that are not based on empirically derived probability estimates should be excluded from the courtroom unless the defense decides otherwise. This conclusion is not bottomed on the usual concern courts and commentators raise about …

Damaged Goods: Why, In Light Of The Supreme Court's Recent Punitive Damages Jurisprudence, Congress Must Amend The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael S. Vitale

Vanderbilt Law Review

Since the 1980s, a wide range of courts and commentators have expressed concern over large punitive damages awards handed out by civil juries against a wide array of tortfeasors. A late 2001 study revealed that from 1985 to 2001, eight multi-billion dollar punitive damages awards were granted, with four of them being handed down in the years 1999 to 2001 alone.' Not surprisingly, all but one of these verdicts were handed down against large corporations. Among the current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens in particular has regularly noted the especially dangerous tendency the current punitive …

Reenvisioning Law Through The Dna Lens, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In recent times, no development has transformed the practice of criminal justice as much as DNA evidence. In little over fifteen years, DNA profiling has produced nothing short of a paradigm shift.1 For police and prosecutors, DNA has become a potent weapon for identifying and convicting criminals. Trace biological material left at a crime scene now provides critical evidence for generating leads through "cold searches" of DNA databases and for convicting defendants at trial. At the same time, for defense attorneys, DNA has become an invaluable tool for seeking exonerations, because just as DNA can link defendants to crimes, it …

Mitochondrial Dna: Emerging Legal Issues, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article will briefly survey some of the current and emerging legal issues surrounding mtDNA evidence. Parts I and II discuss basic evidentiary questions, including mtDNA's reliability and admissibility under Daubert as well as the potential problem of jury confusion regarding the probative value of mtDNA. Part III considers the broader potential of mtDNA to supplant microscopic hair analysis, a technique often criticized for its subjectivity and high error rate. Finally, Part IV explores the unique privacy concerns raised by the maternal inheritance of mtDNA, specifically in the context of DNA databanks.

Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Nearly every treatment of scientific evidence begins with a faithful comparison between the Frye and Daubert standards. Since 1993, jurists and legal scholars have spiritedly debated which standard is preferable and whether particular states should adopt one standard or the other. These efforts beg the question: Does a state's choice of scientific admissibility standard matter? A growing number of scholars suspect that the answer is no. Under this theory, the import of the Supreme Court's Daubert decision was not in its doctrinal standard, but rather in the general consciousness it raised about the problems of unreliable scientific evidence. This Article …

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 …

Changing Scientific Evidence, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

A number of high-profile toxic tort cases, such as silicone breast implants, have followed a familiar and disturbing path: Early studies suggest a link between a suspected substance and a particular illness. Based on these initial studies, lawsuits are brought and juries award large judgments to various plaintiffs. Then later, more comprehensive studies find no evidence of a causal link. How should the legal system cope with this problem in which new scientific evidence calls into question previous findings of liability? These erroneous judgments seriously harm social welfare and legitimacy. Beneficial products are needlessly discontinued or are made more expensive, …

Life After Death Row: Preventing Wrongful Capital Convictions And Restoring Innocence After Exoneration, Jean C. Blackerby

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court overturned its ruling in Furman v. Georgia and held that the death penalty, as administered by the states, was not per se "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment.' Yet errors continue to occur at an alarming rate in the capital punishment system-over one hundred death row inmates have been released pursuant to evidence of actual innocence since 1973. Indeed, the number of death row exonerations has been steadily increasing in recent years.

Of those exonerations, DNA testing played a substantial role in twelve. Many more have benefited from the …

Doubts About Daubert: Psychiatric Anecdata As A Case Study, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Supreme Court sensibly held that testimony purporting to be scientific is admissible only if it possesses sufficient indicia of scientific validity. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the Court more questionably held that opinion evidence based on "technical" and "specialized" knowledge must meet the same admissibility threshold as scientific testimony. This Article addresses the implications of these two decisions for opinion evidence presented by mental health professionals in criminal trials.

Fishing For The Smoking Gun, Y. Daphne Coelho-Adam

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Industry-wide tort litigation, such as tobacco and gun litigation, poses a new problem for extraterritorial discovery. These suits allege conspiracies on the part of the tobacco and gun industries to conceal the dangers of their products from the public. Much of the evidence needed to prove the industries' knowledge is in their possession. These industries are international with companies located in the United Kingdom. Under U.S. discovery law the evidence is discoverable, but such is not the case under British discovery law. Therefore, the evidence and witnesses located in the United Kingdom are outside the grasp of U.S. plaintiffs. The …

Sender Beware: The Discoverability And Admissibility Of E-Mail, William Decoste

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This Note will explore the current body of jurisprudence concerning the discoverability and admissibility of e-mail in both the civil and criminal contexts. Beginning with a brief explanation of the relevant forms of information technology and electronic communication, it will examine the common misconceptions that fuel the ongoing imprudent use of e-mail. It will then trace the development of the case law, from the foundational cases that first confronted electronic evidence to recent precedent specifically addressing the various forms of contemporary e-mail. Federal statutory law regulating the acquisition and use of electronic communications will also be discussed. This Note will …

Psychiatric Evidence In Criminal Trials: To Junk Or Not To Junk?, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article begins, in Part I, with a brief review of the past four decades" of psychiatric and psychological testimony in criminal trials (henceforth referred to simply as "psychiatric testimony"). Although this review cannot be called comprehensive, it does make clear that, contrary to what the popular literature would have us believe, psychiatric innovation is neither at an all time high nor the prevalent form of opinion testimony by mental health professionals. At the same time, such "nontraditional" expert opinion from clinicians, on those rare occasions when it does occur, has changed over the past few decades in both content …

Jaffee V. Redmond: Towards Recognition Of A Federal Counselor-Battered Woman Privilege, Michael Bressman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Part I of this Article reviews the Jaffee decision.' Part II discusses the meaning of the Supreme Court's opinion, focusing on the Court's analysis of the important interests at stake in recognizing the asserted testimonial privilege. In Part II, this Article argues that the Court followed the intent of Congress in crafting a psychotherapist- patient privilege. Furthermore, the extension of the privilege to cover confidential communications made to social workers indicates that there is room for further development of the privilege. In Part III, the Article argues that Jaffee provides the foundation for recognition of a counselor-battered woman privilege in …

Testilying: Police Perjury And What To Do About It, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Police, like people generally, lie in all sorts of contexts for all sorts of reasons. This article has focused on police lying designed to convict individuals the police think are guilty. Strong measures are needed to reduce the powerful incentives to practice such testilying and the reluctance of prosecutors and judges to do anything about it. Among them might be the adoption of rewards for truth telling, the redefinition of probable cause, and the elimination of the exclusionary rule and its insidious effect on the resolve of legal actors to implement the commands of the Constitution. Ultimately, however, the various …