Evidence Commons^™

Summary Of Barry V. Lindner, 119 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 45, Matt Wagner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

In this Article, Professor Sharfman addresses the problem of "discretionary valuation": that courts resolve valuation disputes arbitrarily and unpredictably, thus harming litigants and society. As a solution, he proposes the enactment of "valuation averaging," a new procedure for resolving valuation disputes modeled on the algorithmic valuation processes often agreed to by sophisticated private firms in advance of any dispute. He argues that by replacing the discretion of judges and juries with a mechanical valuation process, valuation averaging would cause litigants to introduce more plausible and conciliatory valuations into evidence and thereby reduce the cost of valuation litigation and increase the …

Apologies And Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination, Jennifer K. Robbennolt

Michigan Law Review

It is often said that U.S. legal culture discourages apologies. Defendants, defense counsel, and insurers worry that statements of apology will be admissible at trial and will be interpreted by jurors and judges as admissions of responsibility. In recent years, however, several legal commentators have suggested that disputants in civil lawsuits should be encouraged to apologize to opposing parties. They claim that apologies will avert lawsuits and promote settlement. Consistent with this view, legislatures in several states have enacted statutes that are intended to encourage and protect apologies by making them inadmissible. In addition, some commentators argue that defendants might …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

This survey period saw no dramatic developments. The necessity exception to the hearsay rule continued to catch within its net statements that, a generation ago, would never have seen the light of a courtroom day. However, there were hints that some appellate justices and judges are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the broad scope of the necessity exception. With regard to expert testimony, Georgia courts continued their refusal to adopt Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., perhaps because of a reluctance to impose on trial court judges the tremendous burden of microscopic analysis of proffered expert testimony.

Expert Testimony And Scientific Evidence, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

Handout from a day-long lecture on expert and scientific testimony at the Maryland Judicial Institute.

Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Daubert & Danger: The "Fit" Of Expert Predictions In Civil Commitments, Alex Scherr

Scholarly Works

The opinions of experts in prediction in civil commitment hearings should help the courts, but over thirty years of commentary, judicial opinion, and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor. The United States Supreme Court has commented regularly on the uncertainty of predictive science. The American Psychiatric Association has argued to the Court that "[t]he professional literature uniformly establishes that such predictions are fundamentally of very low reliability." Scientific studies indicate that some predictions do little better than chance or lay speculation, and even the best predictions leave substantial room for error about individual cases. The sharpest …

Life Sciences, Technology, And The Law - Symosium Transcript - March 7, 2003, Philip R. Reilly, David H. Kaye, Jonathan J. Koehler, Richard O. Lempert

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Life sciences, Technology, and the Law Symposium held at the University of Michigan Law School Friday, March 7, 2003

Impeachment Of Witnesses: A Walking Tour, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This handout from the Maryland State's Attorneys' Convention in 2003 summarizes the general methods of witness impeachment, who may be impeached, and impeachments by attacks on witnesses' character for truthfulness.

Daubert & Danger: The "Fit" Of Expert Predictions In Civil Commitments, Alexander W. Scherr

Popular Media

Never make predictions, especially about the future. But in civil commitments, courts predict future behavior all the time. Judicial action here has severe results for the individual: deprivation of liberty, potentially unwanted and intrusive treatment, and the stigma of mental illness. Judicial inaction can also do harm: erroneous release can lead to injury of the person or others. Resolving these risks requires courts to find the person poses a danger to him/herself or others because of a mental illness.

"Quick-Takes" On A Few Recent Decisions In Evidence Law ... And Rule 5-407, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

Handout from the State and Local Government Law Institute covering recent (2003) Maryland evidence cases.

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 …

Reporter's Privilege In Utah, Edward L. Carter

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Jurors' Evaluations Of Expert Testimony: Judging The Messenger And The Message, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors' reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analysis of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the …

Post-Trilogy Science In The Courtroom, Part Ii: What Are The Judges Still Doing?, David S. Caudill, Lewis H. Larue

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

Remedying Judicial Foot-In-Mouth Disease: Nevada's Prohibitions Against Judicial Commentary On Evidence And The Rule Of Harmless Error, Andrew F. Dixon

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Review Of China's New Civil Evidence Law, Paul J. Schmidt

Washington International Law Journal

On December 21, 2001, China's Supreme People's Court promulgated landmark rules concerning the production and use of evidence in civil cases. These rules became effective on April 1, 2002 and apply to legal actions initiated after that date. The rules apply in all Chinese courts, from the high and intermediate level courts found at the provincial and prefecture level, down to the basic level courts found in rural counties and in urban districts. Of the eighty-three newly promulgated rules, more than half concern procedures for exchanging, confronting, investigating, or discovering evidence. Eleven are strict rules of evidence. The remainder is …

A Review Of China's New Civil Evidence Law, Paul J. Schmidt

Washington International Law Journal

On December 21, 2001, China's Supreme People's Court promulgated landmark rules concerning the production and use of evidence in civil cases. These rules became effective on April 1, 2002 and apply to legal actions initiated after that date. The rules apply in all Chinese courts, from the high and intermediate level courts found at the provincial and prefecture level, down to the basic level courts found in rural counties and in urban districts. Of the eighty-three newly promulgated rules, more than half concern procedures for exchanging, confronting, investigating, or discovering evidence. Eleven are strict rules of evidence. The remainder is …

The Epistemology Of Prediction: Future Dangerousness Testimony And Intellectual Due Process, Erica Beecher-Monas

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Manual De Derecho Procesal Civil, Edward Ivan Cueva

Edward Ivan Cueva

No abstract provided.

The Limits Of The Polygraph, David L. Faigman, Stephen E. Fienberg, Paul C. Stern

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Eyewitness Identification: Expert Witnesses Are Not The Only Solution, Roger C. Park

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Cognitive Foundation Of The Impulse To Blame, Lawrence Solan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Harmonizing Rules 609 And 608 (B) Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Donald H. Zeigler

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Speeding In Reverse: An Anecdotal View Of Why Victim Impact Testimony Should Not Be Driving Capital Prosecutions, Sheri Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Miranda's Demise, Steven D. Clymer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Miranda v. Arizona has been a prominent fixture of the American criminal justice system, as well as police television shows and movies, for more than a third of a century. And when, amid considerable fanfare, the Supreme Court in June 2000 announced its decision in Dickerson v. United States, it appeared that Miranda would retain that status for the foreseeable future. In Dickerson, a surprisingly large 7–2 majority settled a long-standing debate about the constitutional legitimacy of Miranda, holding that the Miranda rules are firmly grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause.

But now, a mere three …

Trials And Tribulations: Science In The Law, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.

Forfeiture By Wrongdoing And Those Who Acquiesce In Witness Intimidation: A Reach Exceeding Its Grasp And Other Problems With Federal Rule Of Evidence 804(B)(6), James F. Flanagan

Faculty Publications

This article is the first comprehensive and critical analysis of the new exception to the hearsay rule that permits prosecutors to admit hearsay statements of absent witnesses when the defendant causes their unavailability at trial. The article develops the problems with the rule's overbroad language, its potential to admit unreliable hearsay and its relationship to the Confrontation Clause. These issues are of increasing interest to lawyers, judges and justices now that it is a federal rule and been adopted by ten states.

The first section is a comprehensive statement of the rule as now applied. The exception is traced from …

Danger At The Edge Of Chaos: Predicting Violent Behavior In A Post-Daubert World, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Ril

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

The Epistemology Of Prediction: Future Dangerousness Testimony And Intellectual Due Process, Erica Beecher-Monas

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.