Evidence Commons^™

Redressing The Harm Of Accelerated Approval, Laura Karas

Articles

The accelerated approval pathway of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enables drugs to come to market more quickly than would be possible under a traditional FDA approval pathway. Accelerated approval is based upon the agency's determination that changes in a surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint are "reasonably likely" to predict a clinical benefit meaningful for patients. In essence, the pathway affords sick patients earlier access to potentially beneficial drugs while trials to confirm clinical benefit continue. Accelerated approval has been likened to a social compromise in which promising drugs enter the market sooner in exchange for a …

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 …

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.

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 …

Race Ethics: Colorblind Formalism And Color-Coded Pragmatism In Lawyer Regulation, Anthony V. Alfieri

Articles

The recent, high-profile civil and criminal trials held in the aftermath of the George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery murders, the Kyle Rittenhouse killings, and the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" Rally violence renew debate over race, representation, and ethics in the U.S. civil and criminal justice systems. For civil rights lawyers, prosecutors, and criminal defense attorneys, neither the progress of post-war civil rights movements and criminal justice reform campaigns nor the advance of Critical Race Theory and social movement scholarship have resolved the debate over the use of race in pretrial, trial, and appellate advocacy, and in the lawyering process more …

The Private Attorney General In A Time Of Hyper-Polarized Politics, Myriam E. Gilles

Articles

With the enactment of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) in 1914 and the Wheeler–Lea Act in 1938, Congress sought to establish a brawny federal consumer protection regime to guard against the myriad unfair and deceptive practices that threatened harm to American consumers. But courts in this era interpreted these statutes to confer exclusive enforcement authority in the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), declining to infer a private right of action. For many decades, the resulting enforcement gap in consumer protection law was filled largely by state Unfair and Deceptive Practices Acts (“UDAPs”), which sanction litigation by both public and …

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?"

Honest Belief And Proof Of Unlawful Motive, Eric Schnapper

Articles

A large number of federal statutes impose liability on a defendant if it acted with a forbidden motivation. Intent is also central to the meaning of a number of constitutional provisions, including many applications of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The large volume of litigation under these provisions does not turn on doctrinal differences about the meaning of intent or purpose, but on disputes about the types of evidence that are and are not sufficient to establish the existence of the forbidden purpose. Those standards, as a practical matter, determine the efficacy of the prohibition at issue …

Vermin Of Proof: Arguments For The Admissibility Of Animal Model Studies As Proof Of Causation In Toxic Tort Litigation, Kristen Ranges, Jessica Owley

Articles

Toxic torts is a body of law that aims to compensate individuals for harms they suffer from exposure to hazardous substances. To successfully bring a toxic tort claim, a plaintiff must prove the main elements of a general tort cause of action: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Causation in a toxic tort case is particularly challenging to prove given the nature of toxic substances. To prove the toxicant in question caused the damages alleged, plaintiffs often present expert testimony based on scientific studies. Animal model studies, in particular, can help factfinders understand the health implications of the toxicants at issue. …

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?

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 …

The Executive Branch Anticanon, Deborah Pearlstein

Articles

Donald Trump’s presidency has given rise to a raft of concerns not just about the wisdom of particular policy decisions but also about the prospect that executive actions might have troubling longer term “precedential” effects. While critics tend to leave undefined what “precedent” in this context means, existing constitutional structures provide multiple mechanisms by which presidential practice can influence future executive branch conduct: judicial actors rely on practice as gloss on constitutional meaning, executive branch officials rely on past practice in guiding institutional norms of behavior, and elected officials outside the executive branch and the people themselves draw on past …

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 …

Pharmaceutical Industry Funding To Patient-Advocacy Organization: A Cross-National Comparison Of Disclosure Codes And Regulation, Laura Karas, Robin Feldman, Bai Ge, So Yeon Kang, Gerard F. Anderson

Articles

Transparency has become one of the primary themes in health care reform efforts in the United States and across the world. In the face of exorbitant drug prices, high levels of patient cost-sharing, and pharmaceutical expenditures that consume a growing proportion of public sector budgets, much attention has been drawn to the pharmaceutical industry. Congressional investigations, academic publications, and news articles have endeavored to reveal the extent of drug and device industry influence on health care actors. In response, several nations, including the United States, have passed legislation mandating disclosure of drug company payments to physicians. In the United States, …

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.

Is Less Really More? Abraham And Kendrick On Getting Rid Of Affirmative Duties, Anthony J. Sebok

Articles

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Shari S. Diamond, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

Experts bedeviled the legal system long before seventeenth-century Salem, when the town's good citizens relied on youthful accusers and witchcraft experts to identify the devil's servants in their midst. As in Salem, claims of expertise have often been questioned and objections raised about the bases of expert knowledge. Expertise, then and now, did not have to be based on science; but the importance of science and the testimony of scientific experts has since medieval times been woven into the fabric of the English jurisprudence that Americans inherited. In cases as long ago as 1299 we find examples of courts seeking …

The Persistence Of The Probabilistic Perspective, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The publication now of an essay written by Craig Callen nearly a decade ago is cause for wistful celebration. Even while we are reminded how suddenly and prematurely Craig’s life ended, it is good to have one more academic contribution from him, especially because it is marked by the erudition, thoroughness, gentleness, and humor that characterized him.

The Institutions Of Innocence Review: A Comparative Sociological Perspective, Jessica A. Roth

Articles

The last three decades have seen the rise of an international innocence movement that has forced participants in diverse criminal justice systems to confront their systems’ fallibility, previously thought more theoretical than real. The public acknowledgment of that fallibility has led to the creation of new institutional mechanisms to re-examine old convictions. This short essay prepared for a symposium issue of the Rutgers University Law Review on the theory of criminal law reform compares the error correction institutions created in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, three English-speaking countries with common law roots and an adversarial structure, through …

Controlling The Jury-Teaching Function, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

When evidence with a scientific basis is offered, two fundamental questions arise. First, should it be admitted? Second, if so, how should it be assessed? There are numerous participants who might play a role in deciding these questions—the jury (on the second question only), the parties (through counsel), expert witnesses on each side, the trial court, the forces controlling the judicial system (which include, but are not limited to, the appellate courts), and the scientific establishment. In this Article, I will suggest that together, the last two—the forces controlling the judicial system and the scientific establishment—have a large role to …

Mitochondrial Dna Replacement: Moral And Halakhic Concerns, J. David Bleich

Articles

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), transmitted from mother to child, have their own genetic code that may cause debilitating genetic diseases. To prevent such unfortunate occurrences, researchers have developed a process enabling them to completely replace an ovum’s mitochondria with mitochondria contributed by a donor. Children born by use of this method have genetic material from both the mitochondrial donor and the birth mother; they are “three-parent babies.” Resultant medical, ethical, legal and theological problems are obvious.

Moreover, this technology may pose significant risks to neonates born of such procedures. Certainly no person has the right to cause harm to a fellow …

Avoid These Eleven Common Evidentiary Mistakes, John E. Rumel

Articles

No abstract provided.

Tort Reform Through The Back Door: A Critique Of Law And Apologies, Yonathan A. Arbel, Kaplan, Yotam Kaplan, Yotam

Articles

In this Article, we show how the biggest tort reform of the last decade was passed through the back door with the blessing of its staunchest opponents. We argue that the widely-endorsed "apology law" reform-a change in the national legal landscape that privileged apologies-is, in fact, a mechanism of tort reform, used to limit victims' recovery and shield injurers from liability. While legal scholars overlooked this effect, commercial interests seized the opportunity and are in the process of transforming state and federal law with the unwitting support of the public.

The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar

Articles

A decade after the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, Geoffrey Stone took a close look at the eleven decisions the Court had handed down “concerning the scope and application of Miranda.” As Stone observed, “[i]n ten of these cases, the Court interpreted Miranda so as not to exclude the challenged evidence.” In the eleventh case, the Court excluded the evidence on other grounds. Thus, Stone noted, ten years after the Court decided the case, “the Court ha[d] not held a single item of evidence inadmissible on the authority of Miranda.” Not a single item. To use …

Missing Police Body Camera Videos: Remedies, Evidentiary Fairness, And Automatic Activation, Mary D. Fan

Articles

A movement toward police regulation by recording is sweeping the nation. Responding to calls for accountability, transparency and better evidence, departments have rapidly adopted body cameras. Recording policies require the police to record more law enforcement encounters than ever before. But what happens if officers do not record? This is an important, growing area of controversy. Based on the collection and coding of police department body camera policies, this Article reveals widespread detection and enforcement gaps regarding failures to record as required. More than half of the major-city departments in the sample have no provisions specifying consequences for not recording …

Hacking Qualified Immunity: Camera Power And Civil Rights Settlements, Mary D. Fan

Articles

Excessive force cases are intensely fact-specific. Did the suspect resist, necessitating the use offorce? What threat did the suspect pose, if any? Was the use of force excessive in light of the situation? These are judgment calls based on myriad facts that differ from case to case. Establishing what really happened forces courts and juries to wade into a fact-bound morass filled with fiercely conflicting defendant-said, police-said battles.

Now an evidentiary transformation is underway. We are in an era where the probability of a police encounter being recorded has never been higher. With the rise of recording—by the public as …