Evidence Commons^™

A Giving Tree Approach: Balancing Transparency And The Deliberative Process In Judicial Review, Anteo W. Chevere

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

A Beacon Trying To Signal Heading: The Ninth Circuit Interprets The California Whistleblower Protection Act In Killgore V. Specpro Professional Services, Llc, Naseem Memari

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

The Modern Energizer Bunny - Hopping Into The Nuclear Energy Revolution: The Tenth Circuit's Analysis In New Mexico Ex Rel. Balderas V. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Jack A. Mansur

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Judges Should Be Discerning Consensus, Not Evaluating Scientific Expertise, David S. Caudill, Harry Collins, Robert Evans

Faculty Publications

One of the most constructive critiques of the Daubert admissibility regime is Professor Edward Cheng’s recent proposal for a new Consensus Rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rejecting the notion that judges and juries have the capacity to evaluate scientific expertise, Cheng’s proposal would eliminate Daubert hearings—and judicial gatekeeping concerning expert testimony—and require judges and juries, in their verdicts, to follow consensus in the relevant scientific community. Significantly, Cheng argues that judges and juries would have an easier time identifying consensus than they have in deciding between experts who disagree.

We find Cheng’s emphasis on consensus compelling, and …

Assessing Evidence Of Secondary Considerations, Jason Reinecke

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Revealing Realities Hidden Behind The Curtain Of Subjective Syndromes: The Seventh Circuit Changes The Narrative Around Expert Evidence On Battered Woman Syndrome In United States V. Dingwall, Keane Brazda

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Consensus Rule: Lessons From The Regulatory World, Wendy Wagner

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Embracing Deference, Edward K. Cheng, Elodie O. Currier, Payton B. Hampton

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The "Crisis Of Expertise" Reaches The Courtroom: An Introduction To The Symposium On, And A Response To, Edward Cheng's Consensus Rule, David S. Caudill

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Owls: Some Difficulties In Judging Scientific Consensus, Harry Collins

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Consensus Rule: Judges, Jurors, And Admissibility Hearings, Robert Evans

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Adversity Of Adversarialism: How The Consensus Rule Reproduces The Expert Paradox, Martin Weinel

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

What A Waste! An Evaluation Of Federal And State Medical And Biohazard Waste Regulations During The Covid-19 Pandemic And Their Impact On Environmental Justice, Samantha Newman

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Trust In Science: The Crisis Of Expertise As An Ideological, And Not Only A Scientific Controversy, David S. Caudill

Faculty Publications

Within the so-called "culture wars" dividing our nation politically, there is a law-related division over the trustworthiness of consensus science-the so-called "crisis of expertise." When the science concerning climate change, mask-wearing, or vaccinations becomes politicized, it loses its mooring in scientific evidence and impacts the effectiveness of regulatory law. Perhaps counter-intuitively, however, the solution is likely not to wear "Because Science" t-shirts while insisting on "cold, hard facts" and diagnosing as stupid those who believe the scientific theories of marginalized, minority-view scientists. Indeed, a certain level of modesty-regarding the uncertainties and tentativeness of even the best science-is necessary for the …

Getting Away With Murder: How California State Law Determined Recovery In First Roundup Cancer Case Johnson V. Monsato Co., Eliza L. Quattlebaum

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

#Guilty? Sublet V. State And The Authentication Of Social Media Evidence In Criminal Proceedings, Elizabeth A. Flanagan

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Pennsylvania Stacks The Deck Against Defendants In Commonwealth V. Alicia, Leaving False Confession Assessments To The Jury, Katherine Reamy

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Rule 706: An Underutilized Tool To Be Used When Partisan Experts Become "Hired Guns", Bradford H. Charles

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

"New Wine In An Old Bottle": The Advent Of Social Media Discovery In Pennsylvania Civil Litigation Matters, Daniel E. Cummins

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Blystone V. Horn: The Third Circuit Guards Against Inadvertent Waiver Of The Right To Present Mitigating Evidence During A Capital Case, Dylan J. Scher

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Rff Family Partnership, Lp V. Burns & Levinson, Llp: Massachusetts Constructs A Functional Framework For In-Firm Privilege And Exposes Other States' Need For Renovation, Kelsey Hughes-Blaum

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Irreparable Misidentifications And Reliability: Reassessing The Threshold For Admissibility Of Eyewitness Identification, Jules Epstein

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Twenty-First Century Fingerprints: The Third Circuit's Approval Of Dna Collection Upon Arrest In United States V. Mitchell, Megan Pownall

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

A Pennsylvania Road Construction Project Completed: The Attorney-Client Privilege In Pennsylvania Clarified As A Two-Way Street In Gillard V. Aig Insurance Co., Andrew Hubley

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

"Introduction" (Chapter 1) Of Stories About Science In Law: Literary And Historical Images Of Acquired Expertise (Ashgate 2011), David S. Caudill

Working Paper Series

This is the introductory chapter of Stories About Science in Law: Literary and Historical Images of Acquired Expertise (Ashgate, 2011), explaining that the book presents examples of how literary accounts can provide a supplement to our understanding of science in law. Challenging the view that law and science are completely different, I focus on stories that explore the relationship between law and science, and identify cultural images of science that prevail in legal contexts. In contrast to other studies on the transfer and construction of expertise in legal settings, the book considers the intersection of three interdisciplinary projects-- law and …

Lawyers Judging Experts: Oversimplifying Science And Undervaluing Advocacy To Construct An Ethical Duty?, David S. Caudill

Working Paper Series

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 to vet …

Book Review: Carl Cranor, Toxic Torts: Science, Law, And The Possibility Of Justice, David S. Caudill

Working Paper Series

Carl F. Cranor’s Toxic Torts: Science, Law, and the Possibility of Justice is a sustained, comprehensive argument that the Daubert gatekeeping regime has tilted the playing field against injured plaintiffs in toxic tort litigation. More generally, Cranor joins those who argue that the Daubert regime has not fared well in practice. Complex scientific evidence is not handled well in trials because scientific methods, data, and inferential reasoning are not well understood by gatekeeping judges. Cranor’s goal is to help solve this problem by offering a detailed description of the patterns of reasoning, evidence collection, and inference in nonlegal scientific settings. …

Arsenic And Old Chemistry: Images Of Mad Alchemists, Experts Attacking Experts, And The Crisis In Forensic Science, David S. Caudill

Working Paper Series

Drawing on research into the use of experts in early 19th-century criminal trials, the image of mad alchemists in popular culture representations of science, and the distinction between empirical and contingent “interpretive repertoires” in the discourse of scientific controversies, this article explores the controversy over arsenic-detection technologies prior to the Marsh test. In addition to noting the predictable criticism of incompetent expertise in the service of law, this article highlights implied accusations of hubris and amorality on the part of over-confident experts, both in the early 19th-century and in today's crisis of forensic science.

Working Without A Net: The Third Circuit Juggles Skepticism And Deference Inside The Ring Of Products Liability Experts After The Daubert Trilogy In Pineda V. Ford Motor Co. & (And) Calhoun V. Yamaha Corp., Jennifer E. Burke

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Alternatives To The Exclusionary Rule After Hudson V. Michigan: Preventing And Remedying Police Misconduct, Alicia M. Hilton

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.