Evidence Commons^™

Liability For Increased Risk Of Harm: A Lawyer's Response To Professor Shafer, Melanie B. Leslie

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Needs An Evidence Code?: The New York Court Of Appeals's Radical Re-Evaluation Of Hearsay, Steven Zeidman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Et Lex Perpetua: Dying Declarations & Mozart's Requiem, Desmond Manderson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Second Circuit's Attack On Jury Nullification In United States V. Thomas: In Disregard Of The Law And The Evidence, Ran Zev Schijanovich

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Secret Knowledge Of Genocide: British Failure To Disclose The Killing Of Jews In 1941, Kent Greenawalt

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cost-Benefit Analysis, Unintended Consequences, And Evidentiary Policy: A Critique And A Rethinking Of The Application Of A Single Set Of Evidence Rules To Civil And Criminal Cases, Myrna S. Raeder

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Economic Analysis Of Evidentiary Law: An Underused Tool, An Underplowed Field, Richard D. Friedman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Economic Analysis Of The Law Of Evidence: A Caveat, Ron A. Shapira

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mezzanatto And The Economics Of Self-Incrimination, Eric Rasmusen

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preface, Norman L. Greene

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Flexibility In Determining The Role Of The Board Of Directors In The Age Of Information, James P. Holdcroft Jr., Jonathan R. Macey

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Three Contributions To Three Important Problems In Evidence Scholarship, Peter Tillers

Cardozo Law Review

This issue of the Cardozo Law Review is graced with original contributions about three fundamental problems in evidence scholarship and the law of evidence. First, in an exchange of views about legal remedies for the wrongful infliction of "evidential damage," Professors Ariel Porat and Alex Stein, on the one hand, and Professor Richard Friedman, on the other, touch on some of the difficulties that are associated with the nearly oxymoronic task of measuring the harm done by the destruction or loss of unknown evidence. Second, in an article about the relationship between estimation of drug quantities and burdens of proof, …

Dealing With Evidentiary Deficiency, Richard D. Friedman

Cardozo Law Review

Lack of information distorts litigation. Claims or defenses that a party might prove easily, or that might even be undisputed, in a world of perfect information can be difficult or impossible to prove in the real world of imperfect information. Some information deficiencies are inevitable, at least in the sense that we could not eliminate them without incurring undue social costs. In some cases, however, a person's conduct may have caused the deficiency. More generally, the person may have had available a reasonable alternative course of conduct that would have eliminated, or at least mitigated, the deficiency.

Probabilistic Networks And Inferred Causation, Christian Borgelt, Rudolf Kruse

Cardozo Law Review

In this article we discuss two related subjects. In the first place, we explain in a tutorial manner the technique of reasoning in probabilistic network structures, which is based on the idea of decomposing a multi-dimensional probability distribution and drawing inferences using only the parts of the decomposition. Secondly, we consider the relations between the structure of a multi-dimensional probability distribution and the underlying causal structure and examine an algorithm which tries to infer the causal structure from the probabilistic structure.

Condemned By Substance And Process: A Comment On “Doubly Condemned”: Adjustments To The Crime And Punishment Regime In The Late Slavery Period In The British Caribbean Colonies And “Under The Present Mode Of Trial, Improper Verdicts Are Very Often Given”: Criminal Procedure In The Trials Of Slaves In Antebellum Louisiana, Raymond T. Diamond

Cardozo Law Review

The substance of modem criminal law and the procedures through which that law is enforced are a subject of current debate. On the one hand, some call into question the use of criminal sanctions as a means of enforcing schemes of regulation meant to guarantee public welfare. By the same token, violent crime and crime that is otherwise malum in se has caused increasing levels of fear and concomitant calls for more vigorous enforcement of the criminal law. As a result, the rights that protect the accused from intrusions by a potentially tyrannical state and from arbitrary decision making by …

Pragmatism And Realism, Hilary Putnam

Cardozo Law Review

Let me begin by asking what will undoubtedly seem to many, if not all of you, a most peculiar question: How did it happen that the first philosopher to present a completely worked out version of direct realism in the entire history of modem philosophy was none other than the American pragmatist, William James?

She’S Gotta Have It Now: A Qualified Rape Crisis Counselor-Victim Privilege, Euphemia B. Warren

Cardozo Law Review

This Note analyzes the justifications for a testimonial privilege for communications between a rape victim and her counselor. More importantly, it contends that a qualified privilege sufficiently protects the counselor-victim relationship and the rape victim's need for confidentiality, while at the same time securing the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. This Note endorses a qualified privilege that requires a specific showing by the defendant that the information he seeks might be helpful to his case before the trial judge will conduct an in camera inspection of the confidential rape counseling records. In the in camera review, the judge will determine whether …

The Ethics Of Witness Coaching, Richard C. Wydick

Cardozo Law Review

This Article focuses on the ethics of coaching cooperative lay witnesses (not adversary witnesses or expert witnesses). It discusses mostly United States law, but the problems it discusses exist also in England and other nations that use the common law adversary system. As used here, "witness coaching" means conduct by a lawyer that alters a witness's story about the events in question. Usually witness coaching occurs when a lawyer is interviewing a witness in the course of investigating the facts of the case or when a lawyer is preparing a witness to testify at a deposition or trial. Interviewing a …

On The Relevance Of The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: Tort System Outcomes Are Principally Determined By Lawyers’ Rates Of Return, Lester Brickman

Cardozo Law Review

The attention generated by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reflects the perceived importance of the issue of the admissibility of scientific evidence in tort litigation. In products liability litigation, whether claimants prevail often depends upon expert testimony presented on the issue of causation. Unless a claimant is able to have the expert's testimony admitted, there will be little or no chance of prevailing. Thus, though it is disputed whether Daubert will extend or contract tort liability, it is undisputed that its importance lies in its impact on the scope of tort liability.

Daubert: Interpreting The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Cardozo Law Review

In 1992 Judge Becker and Professor Orenstein referred to the Frye issue - the admissibility of novel scientific evidence-as the "most controversial and important unresolved question" in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Indeed, during the prior decade the federal courts had battled over the issue, as had their state counterparts. Similarly, text writers and law review commentators vigorously disagreed about the proper standard for admitting scientific evidence. While one ABA report on the Federal Rules explored the Frye issue and concluded that it "is not clear that any standard would produce agreement at the moment," another report cited it as …

The Meaning Of Daubert And What That Means For Forensic Science, Randolph N. Jonakait

Cardozo Law Review

Daubert's effect on forensic science is unclear because the opinion is unclear. The Daubert Court did start blazing a useful path by stating that before scientific testimony is admitted, the trial court must be convinced that "the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and ... that [the] reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." But the Court's trailblazing was incomplete and often misleading.

Some Implications Of Daubert And Its Potential For Misuse: Misapplication To Environmental Tort Cases And Abuse Of Rule 706(A) Court-Appointed Experts, Ellen Relkin

Cardozo Law Review

This Commentary will address an array of issues underlying and emerging from the disputes in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its inevitable progeny, from a practitioner's perspective representing plaintiffs in toxic tort litigation. It is intended to provide real examples that debunk the quaint but unrealistic notion that science is pure and insulated from economics and politics, the propagandized suggestion that it is the plaintiff's expert who promotes "fringe" or "junk" science, and the belief that epidemiology is the sine qua non of proving causation of a disease. It will also address the potential perils of the …

Table Of Contents - Cardozo Law Review, Volume 15, Issues 6-7

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Redefining The Bases For Admissibility Of Expert Scientific Testimony, Clifton T. Hutchinson, Danny S. Ashby

Cardozo Law Review

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is not only, or even primarily, a case about the viability of Frye v. United States and "general acceptance" as the criterion for evaluating expert testimony. Principally, it is a case about the preconditions of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the sole provision in the Federal Rules that authorizes the use of expert testimony. The question as framed by petitioners in the course of argument was whether trial courts may screen scientific expert testimony under any real test. The Supreme Court answered this question strongly in the affirmative.

Petitioners' recurring theme was that Rule …

Taking Daubert’S “Focus” Seriously: The Methodology/Conclusion Distinction, Kenneth J. Chesebro

Cardozo Law Review

Last June's United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., rejected the Frye "general acceptance" test for scientific evidence, and went on to make "some general observations" about proper admissibility analysis under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Daubert was the Court's first decision squarely addressing the expert testimony provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and United States Law Week called Daubert "probably the most important procedural case of the term."

Should Federal Evidence Rules Trump State Tort Policy? The Federalism Values Daubert Ignored, Michael H. Gottesman

Cardozo Law Review

I want to explore issues that the Supreme Court should have addressed in Daubert but did not. The Court decided that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") assigns a "gatekeeping" function to federal trial judges, who are to exclude expert scientific opinions that do not meet a standard of "reliability" vaguely sketched out in the Court's opinion.

The Daubert case involved exclusively state substantive law issues and was in federal court only because the defendant removed it from state court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The Court held the gatekeeping function applicable in diversity actions, …

The Impact Of Daubert On The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: The Supreme Court Catches Up With A Decade Of Jurisprudence, Arvin Maskin

Cardozo Law Review

Over the past several years a host of new civil damage theories has emerged, notably in the mass tort area. These include claims for increased risk of disease, fear of disease, hedonic damages, immunotoxicity, and medical surveillance. In the great majority of these cases, the dispositive issue reduces to causation, which invariably turns upon scientific evidence. Moreover, the stakes in these cases have greatly escalated. For example, the $180 million settlement in the Agent Orange case seemed like a lot of money in 1984, until several years later when the Dalkon Shield litigation, which involved the sale of a single …

Check Your Crystal Ball At The Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring The Past, Understanding The Present, And Worrying About The Future Of Scientific Evidence, David L. Faigman, Elise Porter, Michael J. Saks

Cardozo Law Review

Since the earliest days of the use of expert witnesses, judges (and more recently legislatures) have struggled to design the juridical intersection where law and science cross paths. The effort has not met with notable success. This situation could be changing, however. Last term, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court adopted a novel approach to the age-old problem of scientific evidence. The -Court determined that the Federal Rules of Evidence require scientific evidence to be scientifically valid before it enters the courtroom. The Court has served notice that experts should trade in their crystal balls …

Conflict Resolution In The Courts: The Role Of Science, Anthony Z. Roisman

Cardozo Law Review

This Article is a philosophical examination of an issue that now engages many lawyers and scientists-the proper role of science in courtroom litigation. More specifically, the issue is this: In cases where expert testimony is useful to lay jurors in resolving factual issues, what is the proper role of a judge in restricting what sorts of experts can testify and what they can say?

The Supreme Court’S View Of Science: Has Daubert Exorcised The Certainty Demon?, Bert Black

Cardozo Law Review

The Supreme Court's mandate in Daubert that experts who give testimony based on science must confine themselves to valid scientific knowledge seems tautologically obvious, and hardly an issue requiring the attention of the nation's nine highest judges. The debate that led to Daubert was generated, however, by opponents of judicial screening who argued that holding experts to scientific standards somehow imposes an undue burden of proof on plaintiffs, especially in toxic tort cases - and the Supreme Court's decision has not put the issue completely to rest. Science, according to this "relaxed standards" argument, demands certainty far beyond the law's …