Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Discipline
Keyword
Publication Year

Articles 31 - 50 of 50

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Will Quants Rule The (Legal) World?, Edward K. Cheng Apr 2009

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 …

Go to article

Law, Statistics, And The Reference Class Problem, Edward K. Cheng Jan 2009

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," …

Go to article

How The Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin Dec 2008

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 …

Go to article

Experts, Mental States, And Acts, Christopher Slobogin Jan 2008

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 …

Go to article

Independent Judicial Research In The "Daubert" Age, Edward K. Cheng Mar 2007

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 …

Go to article

The Perils Of Evidentiary Manipulation, Edward K. Cheng Jan 2007

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 …

Go to article

Should Judges Do Independent Research On Scientific Issues?, Edward K. Cheng Sep 2006

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.

Go to article

Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng May 2006

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.

Go to article

Dangerousness And Expertise Redux, Christopher Slobogin Jan 2006

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 …

Go to article

Reenvisioning Law Through The Dna Lens, Edward K. Cheng Apr 2005

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 …

Go to article

Mitochondrial Dna: Emerging Legal Issues, Edward K. Cheng Apr 2005

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.

Go to article

Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon Apr 2005

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 …

Go to article

Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty Of Deliberately Disregarding, Chris Guthrie, Andrew J. Wistrich Mar 2005

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 …

Go to article

Changing Scientific Evidence, Edward K. Cheng Dec 2003

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, …

Go to article

Doubts About Daubert: Psychiatric Anecdata As A Case Study, Christopher Slobogin Jul 2000

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.

Go to article

Psychiatric Evidence In Criminal Trials: To Junk Or Not To Junk?, Christopher Slobogin Oct 1998

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 …

Go to article

Jaffee V. Redmond: Towards Recognition Of A Federal Counselor-Battered Woman Privilege, Michael Bressman Jan 1997

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 …

Go to article

Testilying: Police Perjury And What To Do About It, Christopher Slobogin Oct 1996

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 …

Go to article

Estelle V. Smith: The Constitutional Contours Of The Forensic Evaluation, Christopher Slobogin Jan 1982

Estelle V. Smith: The Constitutional Contours Of The Forensic Evaluation, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In Estelle v. Smith,' the United States Supreme Court recognized for the first time that an evaluation of a criminal defendant by a mental health professional may implicate both the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The issues raised in Estelle are significant not only for the legal profession but also for those in the mental health professions who perform "clinical" evaluations for the criminal courts. Estelle involved the case of Ernest Smith, who was sentenced to death by a Texas jury in 1974. Prior to trial, the judge ordered a psychiatrist, Dr. Grigson, …

Go to article

Capacity To Contest A Search And Seizure: The Passing Of Old Rules And Some Suggestions For New Ones, Christopher Slobogin Jan 1981

Capacity To Contest A Search And Seizure: The Passing Of Old Rules And Some Suggestions For New Ones, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Professor Slobogin examines recent Supreme Court decisions involving standing to challenge search and seizure violations, and argues that the Court's commitment to a "totality of the circumstances" approach has permitted erosion of fourth amendment protections. After concluding that these decisions provide little guidance to lower courts, Professor Slobogin offers a set of principles which will aid in analyzing the Court's direction.

Go to article

First Prev