Evidence Commons^™

The Early Returns Are In: A Review Of The First Two Years Of Amended Federal Rule Of Evidence 702, Mark Behrens, Lee Mickus, Christopher Appel

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Metrics Not Thresholds: How To Regulate Ai And Other Expert Methods For Use In Criminal Investigations And Proceedings, Rebecca Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

Should regulators set performance thresholds for AI tools used in the criminal legal system? This Article draws on U.S. evidence law for guidance. Its answer is ... don’t. Instead of gatekeeping with ex ante performance thresholds, regulators should require or incentivize metrics of reliability that can be clearly communicated to end-user decisionmakers.

The Evidence Machine: Rethinking Admissibility And Privacy In India's Ai Surveillance State, Samyukta Ramaswamy

Indian Journal of Law and Technology

The proliferation of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) surveillance technologies that utilise machine learning (‘ML’) capabilities to gather and process information to derive insights about individuals has transformed the surveillance landscape by enabling governments and private entities to engage in increasingly pervasive monitoring and data-driven profiling. In India, this transformation is compounded by the presence of executive-controlled surveillance mechanisms under the legal framework of the Telecommunications Act 2023, the Telecommunications (Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages) Rules 2024, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, amongst others, which authorises wide-ranging data interception and dragnet surveillance while exempting government agencies …

Adversarial Certification Of Evidentiary Software, Nicholas G. Vincent, Bryan H. Choi, Eli Siems, Clay Halbert, Katherine J. Strandburg

Publications

No abstract provided.

Preliminary Questions Of Fact: Respective Roles Of Judge And Jury In Maine Courts, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Virtually indisputable in the law is the notion that the trial judge determines questions of admissibility of evidence. However, when admissibility depends upon the evaluation of a preliminary question of fact, both courts and commentators disagree as to whether the judge should continue to occupy the role of sole decision-maker. The intertwining of fact, the preliminary condition, and law, the admissibility decision, raises some havoc with accepted views of the judge as arbiter of the law and the jury as fact finder. If the judge determines both questions, he is resolving not only legal, but also factual issues traditionally within …

Deepfakes On Trial: Developing A High-Accuracy, Court-Admissible Ai Pipeline For Deepfake Detection In Corporate Fraud Litigation, Aiden J. Green

Honors College Theses

As deepfake technology advances, cybercriminals are increasingly using AI-generated videos and audios to impersonate executives and carry out sophisticated CEO fraud schemes. These synthetic forgeries target human trust and corporate communication systems, creating an urgent need for forensic tools capable of authenticating digital evidence with legal accuracy. This thesis presents a forensic-grade AI deepfake detection pipeline designed for this purpose, emphasizing courtroom admissibility, reproducibility, and evidentiary integrity. Built entirely with free, opensource tools, the framework combines metadata analysis, AI-powered spectrogram analysis, neural artifact detection, and facial manipulation recognition into a transparent workflow that accurately identifies synthetic media. It was trained …

The Repair Rule: Maine Rule Of Evidence 407(A) And The Admissibility Of Subsequent Remedial Measures In Proving Negligence, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Evidence of subsequent repairs is generally excluded when submitted for admission as circumstantial evidence of negligence. Although this Comment will examine various theories under which such evidence has been held inadmissible, these theories are all based on one of two assumptions. Evidence of subsequent repairs has been excluded either because it is regarded as irrelevant to the issue of negligence, or although relevant, as incompetent because its admission is believed to counteract the strong public policy to encourage repairs. Most modern rules of evidence now base the exclusion on the public policy rationale. Thus, the effect of the subsequent repair …

Validity And Relevancy Analysis: An Approach To The Admissions Of Experimental Evidence, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Rules of evidence in the common law system were developed to serve the fundamental purpose of minimizing erroneous factual conclusions by the jury. In pursuit of this goal, two guiding principles have been followed: first, that the jury should be provided with the most accurate and trustworthy information possible; second, that the flow of information to the jury should be controlled to exclude evidence which is irrelevant or otherwise misleading. Since the earliest cases in which the results of experiments were offered as evidence, American courts have treated experiments as a unique form of evidence but have found it difficult …

State V. Liverpool, 314 A.3d 948 (R.I. 2024), Ryan Claudino

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gatekeeping & Class Certification: The Eleventh Circuit’S Stringent Approach To Admitting Expert Evidence In Support Of Class Certification, Pravin Patel, Mark Pinkert, Patrick Lyons

University of Miami Law Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is silent on whether evidence offered in support of a motion for class certification must be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Supreme Court has not addressed this issue, and there is currently no authoritative framework for incorporating all or some of the federal evidentiary rules into the class certification process. Resultantly, circuit courts are split on this question and have coalesced among several different approaches. The Eleventh Circuit follows a rigorous evidentiary standard in which evidence offered in support of class certification generally must be admissible under the Federal Rules of …

Against "The Huddleston Test", Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

Many courts—mostly federal, but also some state courts—are misapplying the United States Supreme Court's decision in the 1988 case United States v. Huddleston. These courts have used a single paragraph of dicta from the Huddleston opinion to craft multipart checklist-type "tests" that displace the single requirement of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (or corresponding state rules). This displacement risks the admission of other acts evidence without determining whether the evidence is relevant for a non-character purpose by means of inferences that do not involve character. These Huddleston tests thus undermine Rule 404(b)'s prohibition that other acts evidence …

Sentencing In An Era Of Plea Bargains, Jeffrey Bellin, Jeenia I. Turner

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The literature offers inconsistent answers to a question that is foundational to criminal law: Who imposes sentences? Traditional narratives place sentencing responsibility in the hands of the judge. Yet, in a country where 95% of criminal convictions come from guilty pleas (not trials), modern American scholars center prosecutors who control plea terms as the deciders of punishment. This Article highlights and seeks to resolve the tension between these conflicting narratives by charting the pathways by which sentences are determined in a system dominated by plea bargains. After reviewing the empirical literature on sentence variation, examining state and federal plea-bargaining rules …

Omar Effendi Vs. Union Fenosa: Corruption As A Transnational Public Policy Consideration, Ahmed Badr Eldin

Theses and Dissertations

At the beginning of 2011, Egypt witnessed radical political developments that led to the emergence of a pressing tendency to adjudicate the collapsed regime’s policies and practices. Shortly thereafter, the Egyptian State Council issued a number of judicial decisions that confirmed that the sale of the privatized governmental enterprises had been tainted by corruption. Crucially, the Court maintained that flagrant breach of law, regulations, and administrative orders that encompassed these transactions created serious suspicions about corruption committed by public officials and investors. It concluded that the existence of corruption, as a transnational public policy consideration, had deprived foreign investors of …

One Step Backward: The Ninth Circuit's Unfortunate Rule 404(B) Decision In United States V. Lague, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

The federal courts' current approach to character evidence is widely recognized as problematic. Although Rule 404(b)(1) categorically prohibits the use of character evidence, Rule 404(b)(2) presents a list of examples of permitted purposes that has tempted courts to view the admission of other-acts evidence as proper so long as the evidence is merely relevant to a non-character purpose. Additionally, courts have misconstrued the inclusive structure of Rule 404(b) as creating a presumption

in favor of admissibility. Recent efforts to correct this mistakenly permissive view include decisions by several of the federal circuit courts of appeals recognizing that Rule 404(b) requires …

The Liar’S Mark: Character And Forfeiture In Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), Jesse Schupack

Michigan Law Review

Rule 609(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is an outlier. The Rule mandates admission of impeaching evidence of a witness’s past convictions for crimes of dishonesty. It is the only place in the Rules where judges are denied their usual discretion to exclude evidence on the grounds that its admission would be more prejudicial than probative. This Note analyzes three assumptions underlying this unusual Rule: (1) that there is a coherently definable category of crimes of dishonesty, (2) that convictions for crimes of dishonesty are uniquely probative of a person’s character, and (3) that an assessment of moral character …

Junk Science At Sentencing, Maneka Sinha

Faculty Scholarship

Junk science used in criminal trials has contributed to hundreds of wrongful convictions. But the problem is much worse than that. Junk science does not only harm criminal defendants who go to trial, but also the overwhelming majority of defendants—over ninety-five percent—who plead guilty, skip trial, and proceed straight to sentencing.

Scientific, technical, and other specialized evidence (“STS evidence”) is used regularly, and with increasing frequency, at sentencing. Despite this, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its state equivalents—which help filter unreliable STS evidence at trials—do not apply at the critical sentencing stage. In fact, at sentencing, no meaningful admissibility …

Junk Evidence: A Call To Scrutinize Historical Cell Site Location Evidence, Victoria Saxe

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

Historical cell site location information (CSLI) has been offered as objective, scientific location evidence in criminal trials, but is far less precise than the claims it is used to support. Not only is there no way to pinpoint a cellphone’s precise geographic location from historical CSLI, but there are also no known validation or error rates for the methodologies used to collect and analyze this data. A 2019 telecommunications scandal in Denmark revealed gross inadequacies in the cellphone data and software used by law enforcement to analyze this type of evidence. The scandal sent shockwaves through the country’s legal community …

Unbuckling The Seat Belt Defense In Arkansas, Spencer G. Dougherty

Arkansas Law Review

The “seat belt defense” has been hotly litigated over the decades in numerous jurisdictions across the United States. It is an affirmative defense that, when allowed, reduces a plaintiff’s recovery for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision where the defendant can establish that those injuries would have been less severe or avoided entirely had the plaintiff been wearing an available seat belt. This is an unsettled legal issue in Arkansas, despite the growing number of cases in which the seat belt defense is raised as an issue. Most jurisdictions, including Arkansas, initially rejected the defense, but the basis for …

The Truthsayer And The Court: Expert Testimony On Credibility, Michael W. Mullane

Maine Law Review

The purpose of this Article is to analyze the admissibility of expert testimony on credibility. State v. Woodburn serves as a lens to focus on the broader issues. The primary issue is an examination of expert testimony on credibility in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence and their progeny. The Rules of Evidence mandate admission or exclusion of expert testimony based on certain criteria. How are these criteria applied to expert testimony on credibility? How should they be applied? The surprising survivability of other criteria discarded by the Rules is also considered.

Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump

Seattle University Law Review

There is an enormous literature about the admissibility of criminal confessions. But almost all of it deals with issues related to self-incrimination or, to a lesser extent, with hearsay or accuracy concerns. As a result, the question whether we ever admit criminal confessions into evidence has not been the subject of much analysis. This gap is odd, since confessions are implicitly disfavored by a proportion of the literature and they often collide with exclusionary doctrines. Furthermore, the self-incrimination issue sometimes is resolved by balancing, and it would help if we knew what we were balancing. Therefore, one might ask: Why …

Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland presented prosecutors with new professional challenges. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must provide the defense with any evidence in its possession that could be exculpatory. If the prosecution fails to timely turn over evidence that materially undermines the defendant’s guilt, a reviewing court must grant the defendant a new trial. While determining whether evidence materially undermines a defendant’s guilt may seem like a simple assessment, the real-life application of such a determination can be complicated. The prosecution’s disclosure determination can be complicated under the Brady paradigm because …

Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …

Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley

Michigan Law Review

Circuit courts are split on whether and to what extent the Daubert standard should apply at class certification. Potential plaintiffs believe that application of Daubert would make it nearly impossible to obtain class certification. For potential defendants, the application of the standard is an important way to ensure that the certification process is fair. This Note examines the incentives underlying the push to apply the Daubert standard at class certification and the benefits and drawbacks associated with that proposal. It proposes a solution that balances the concerns of both plaintiffs and defendants by focusing on three factors: the obstacles to …

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 …

Unconstitutional Asymmetry Or A Rational Basis For Inconsistency? The Admissibility Of Medical Malpractice Prelitigation Screening Panel Findings Before And After Smith V. Hawthorne I And Ii, Matthew Asnault Morris

Maine Law Review

Pre-litigation screening panels have been instrumental in streamlining medical malpractice litigation in the State of Maine by culling claims from superior court dockets, encouraging settlements, and providing findings of fact that could prove useful for a jury if the case proceeds to trial. In enacting one particular provision governing the confidentiality and the admissibility of the screening panel process, however, the legislature may have sacrificed the constitutional rights of medical malpractice claimants in favor of a lighter docket. Two recent cases before the Law Court, Smith I and II, have challenged the constitutionality of Maine’s unique statutory approach to the …

Opportunity Lost, Opportunity Found: A Proposal To Amend Maine's Rule Of Evidence 404 To Admit "Prior Acts" Evidence In Domestic Violence Prosecutions, Tina Heather Nadeau

Maine Law Review

In 2008, thirty-one people were the victims of homicide in the state of Maine. Even more startling: nineteen of these homicides stemmed from domestic violence, possibly the largest number of domestic-violence-related killings in the state's history. This means that nearly 70 percent of Maine's homicides in 2008 were the result of domestic violence. Amendments made in 2007 (and implemented in February 2008) to Maine's Criminal Code have criminalized particular instances of domestic violence as “enhanced” crimes of violence. This allows prosecutors to consider “prior acts” of domestic abuse when deciding how to charge a criminal defendant accused of a domestic-violence-related …

Criminal Law—When The Pillow Talks: Arkansas's Rape Shield Statute Bars Dna Evidence Excluding The Defendant As The Source Of Semen. Thacker V. State, 2015 Ark. 406, 474 S.W.3d 65., Lacon Marie Smith

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Moment Of Truth For Fmri: Will Deception Detection Pass Admissibility Hurdles In Oklahoma?, Julie Elizabeth Myers

Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Gatekeeping Science: Using The Structure Of Scientific Research To Distinguish Between Admissibility And Weight In Expert Testimony, David L. Faigman, Christopher Slobogin, John Monahan

Northwestern University Law Review

Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determines the admissibility of evidence, and the jury, which gauges its weight. In most evidentiary contexts, such as those involving hearsay and character, threshold admissibility obligations are clear and relatively uncontroversial. The same is not true for scientific evidence. The complex nature of scientific inference, and in particular the challenges of reasoning from group data to individual cases, has bedeviled courts. As a result, courts vary considerably on how they define the judge’s gatekeeping task under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its state equivalents.

This …

Billy Joel: The Minstrel Testifies Or How The Rules Of Evidence Handcuff The Piano Man, Hon. Richard A. Dollinger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.