Evidence Commons^™

Rules And Laws For Civil Actions 2026, Stella Burch Elias, Derek T. Muller, Jason Rantanen, Caroline Sheerin, Maya Steinitz

Books

Rules and Laws for Civil Actions is an open-access resource for law students containing the U.S. Constitution, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and selected federal and state statutes. The book was created by a team of faculty members at the University of Iowa College of Law to supplement the study of Civil Procedure, Evidence, Constitutional Law, and other law school courses. In addition to containing the official text, each legal source found in Rules and Laws for Civil Actions is accompanied by an introductory section written by an Iowa Law professor …

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.

You Get The Jury You Get And You Don’T Throw A Fit, Taurus Myhand

Scholarly Works

The proliferation of deepfake videos has resulted in rapid improvements in the technology used to create them. Although the use of fake videos and images is not new, advances in artificial intelligence have made deepfakes easier to make and harder to detect. Basic human perception is no longer sufficient to detect deepfakes. Yet, under the current construction of the Federal Rules of Evidence, trials judges are expected to do just that. Trial judges face a daunting challenge when applying the current evidence authentication standards to video evidence in this new reality of widely available deepfake videos. This article examines the …

A Conviction In Jeopardy: The Mysterious Case Against Scott Peterson, Jolie Bodner Zangari

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Jury Does Not Always Need Help From Lay Opinion Witnesses, Taurus Myhand

Scholarly Works

Who is the “reasonable person”? There is little doubt that every competent legal professional, both in law practice and in the academic setting, has spent a great deal of time attempting to define the reasonable person. “Reasonableness is largely a matter of common sense.” In police encounters, the definition is certainly important to the outcome of questionable police conduct. How the reasonable person is defined often determines whether a police officer has infringed on an individual’s Fourth Amendment guarantee to be secure in their person against unreasonable searches and seizures. As the narratives of the news media shape how some …

Federal Rule Of Evidence 702: A History And Guide To The 2023 Amendments Governing Expert Evidence, Mark A. Behrens, Andrew J. Trask

Texas A&M Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended effective December 1, 2023. The Rule was amended to clarify and emphasize that expert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent demonstrates to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered testimony meets all of the Rule’s admissibility requirements. The amendment was necessitated by decisions by many federal courts incorrectly applying the reliability requirements set forth in Rule 702(b) and (d) and declaring that expert testimony is presumed to be admissible. Rule 702 was also amended to prevent “overstatement” by experts. Rule 702(d) now emphasizes that an expert’s opinion …

Murder On The Hearsay Trail, Jeffrey Bellin

Texas A&M Law Review

Judges, lawyers, and law students struggle to apply American evidence law’s most distinctive feature—the hearsay prohibition. The problem is that hearsay is difficult to master and somewhat dull. At the same time, hearsay evidence is ubiquitous and important. Every litigator has a story about a judge’s eccentric hearsay rulings; mine is the trial judge who waved his hand dismissively at hearsay objections, letting witnesses answer on the grounds that “I want to hear it.” And the case law is littered with appellate opinions scolding trial judges for erroneous hearsay rulings while introducing errors of their own.

That is just the …

A Constitutional Right To Exclude Evidence, Colin Miller

Texas A&M Law Review

The Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to introduce evidence and a constitutional right to receive evidence, but it has never recognized a constitutional right to exclude evidence. Specifically, the Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings finding that the Due Process Clause demands that (1) defendants have the right to present a defense that trumps the rules of evidence; (2) the prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense; (3) the State has certain duties to preserve evidence so that it can be disclosed to the defense; and (4) any discovery obligations on defendants …

The Obsolescence Of Voluntary Confessions In Maine, John C. Sheldon

Maine Law Review

The would-be assassin lurks in the crowd that gathers outside the campaign headquarters building. In anticipation of the candidate's appearance, the television technicians hoist their videotape cameras and illuminate the scene with floodlights, as the gunman nervously fingers the automatic concealed in the pocket of his field jacket. Moments later, the candidate emerges from the doorway; the assassin rushes into the floodlit view of the cameras, takes aim at the startled politician, and hollers: "I've been planning this for years, and now I'm going to give you what's coming to you." His shots ring out as Secret Service agents converge …

State V. Curlew: Assessing The Sufficiency Of Evidence Under The Corpus Delicti Rule, Brett D. Baber

Maine Law Review

In State v. Curlew, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, reversed a conviction for unlawful sexual contact. The court predicated reversal upon a reaffirmation of both the substantive aspect and the evidentiary aspect of the corpus delicti rule. The substantive aspect of the corpus delicti rule requires the state "to produce, exclusive of any confession or admission by the defendant, such credible evidence as will create a substantial belief that the crime charged has been committed by some person." The evidentiary aspect of the corpus delicti rule requires proof of the corpus delicti prior to the …

State V. Durepo: Toward A Principled Maine Version Of The Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Andre D. Bouffard

Maine Law Review

As one might have anticipated, the broad substantive mandates of the major Warren Court exclusionary rule decisions have not been left completely intact by later Supreme Court decisions. Instead, the scope of the evidentiary exclusionary doctrine established by the Warren Court has been significantly narrowed by later Supreme Court decisions that have created numerous exceptions to the general command of the exclusionary rule that evidence obtained through unconstitutional means is inadmissible in a criminal trial. Although some members of the present Court argue that the exceptions to the exclusionary rule are consistent with the purposes of the rule, and therefore …

Models For Use Of Mediation In E-Discovery, Steven C. Bennett

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

An Updated Practical Guide To Taking And Defending Depositions, Gary S. Gildin

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The deposition offers a singular opportunity to handcuff the deponent to an irreversible script. Consequently, both the attorney taking the deposition and defending counsel must prepare for and conduct the deposition with equal if not greater care than the trial.

Traditionally, lawyers have used the deposition to discover facts relating to the legal elements and the credibility, perception, and recollection of the witness. However, recent breakthroughs in neuroscience as to how the brain makes decisions have revealed a different genre of evidence that will drive how the trier of fact will decide the case. Today an attorney taking a deposition …

The Incoherence Of Evidence Law, G. Alexander Nunn

Faculty Scholarship

What is the purpose of evidence law? The answer might seem intuitive. Evidence law exists, of course, to foster verdict accuracy, legitimacy, and efficiency. But these kindred aims often come into conflict. Policy tradeoffs are inescapable in evidence law, meaning that an evidentiary regime must clarify how its normative objectives cohere. Do accuracy, legitimacy, and efficiency work together on equal footing, such that the goal of a code is to maximize each objective to the extent possible? Or does one of evidence law’s aims take precedence over the rest? And if one goal takes priority, what is the role of …

Confrontation, The Legacy Of Crawford, And Important Unanswered Questions, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The right to confront has a long history. In the United States, the Confrontation Clause provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” One of the most troublesome areas of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been the Clause’s application to “hearsay statements offered against a criminal defendant pursuant to a hearsay exception or exemption[.]” The Supreme Court’s confrontation analysis in this situation once hinged on the statement’s reliability, with the traditional hearsay rule and its exceptions and exemptions as a guide. But in Crawford v. Washington, the Court considered …

Guess Who?: First-Time In-Court Identifications And Due Process, Natalie Beers

Washington and Lee Law Review

Juries believe eyewitnesses. When an identifying eyewitness takes the stand and points to a defendant in a courtroom, the jury is more likely to render a guilty verdict. But how reliable is that identification? What if the eyewitness is on the stand identifying a perpetrator for the first time, in the court room, rather than at the police station with a lineup or photo array? How do those suggestive circumstances implicate a criminal defendant’s due process rights?

First-time in-court identifications are inherently suggestive. While the Supreme Court has acknowledged the suggestive nature of similar identifications, it did not directly address …

The Brain Is In Your Court: Evaluating Intellectual Property Infringement Audience Through The Lens Of Neuroscience, Madyson Kent

Washington and Lee Law Review

To protect creations of the mind, the law needs to understand the mind. Thankfully, the rapidly emerging field of neuroscience provides an invaluable glimpse into the inner workings of the human brain. Now that scientific instruments provide a window into the living brain, it is time to reexamine the way intellectual property law decides the outcomes of infringement lawsuits.

Critically examining neuroscience in the context of the law helps to answer the most fundamental question in an intellectual property lawsuit: Was there infringement? A judicial hesitancy to understand the thought processes of artists and creators results in relying on the …

Washington Civil Jury Trials Via Zoom: Perspectives From The Bench, Marisa Pasnick

Washington Law Review

Many professions have felt the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, including the legal field. At the onset of COVID-19, many courthouses closed and trials halted, but as the pandemic continued, the need to resume judicial proceedings led courts to turn to virtual platforms to conduct civil jury trials. This Comment examines the response of judges in Washington State to the use of Zoom for conducting civil jury trials. Interviews with judges across Washington reveal a stark contrast in opinions among judges in different districts as well as within districts. This Comment answers the question of how judges feel about …

Authenticating Social Media Evidence In Chinese Criminal Procedure Law -- A Comparative Study, Yage Huang

Maurer Theses and Dissertations

Authentication requires the proponent to provide sufficient proof that the proposed social media evidence is, indeed, what it is claimed to be. The rapid proliferation of social media evidence has posed significant challenges for its authentication. This dissertation explores the authentication challenges for social media evidence in a comprehensive manner.

This research employs a qualitative research methodology, including theoretical and analytical methods, to examine the theoretical approaches, statutory provisions, and recent judicial rulings related to the authentication of social media evidence within the legal frameworks of China and the United States. Through a comparative analysis, this study reveals significant commonalities …

Prosecutorial Storytelling Through Intrinsic Evidence, Brian Chen

Pepperdine Law Review

Crimes make for compelling stories. So juries make for an eager audience. Jurors want to—indeed, expect to—learn what the defendant did, how they did it, and why they deserve punishment. Capable prosecutors know how to deliver. Trial narratives empower jurors to link discrete pieces of evidence and infer facts from circumstantial proof. Only then can they render a verdict consistent with their sense of justice. Federal courts thus afford wide leeway for prosecutors to present their case as they please, with the evidence at their disposal. The Federal Rules of Evidence delineates the scope of that discretion. Under Rule 404(b), …

Machines Like Me: A Proposal On The Admissibility Of Artificially Intelligent Expert Testimony, Andrew W. Jurs, Scott Devito

Pepperdine Law Review

With the rapidly expanding sophistication of artificial intelligence systems, their reliability, and cost-effectiveness for solving problems, the current trend of admitting testimony based on artificially intelligent (AI) systems is only likely to grow. In that context, it is imperative for us to ask what rules of evidence judges today should use relating to such evidence. To answer that question, we provide an in-depth review of expert systems, machine learning systems, and neural networks. Based on that analysis, we contend that evidence from only certain types of AI systems meet the requirements for admissibility, while other systems do not. The break …

Emotionally Harmed? It Might Not Matter: An Analysis Of Cummings V. Premier Rehab Keller And Its Implications For Title Ii Of The Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990, Sotir Zhupa

Cardozo Law Review

On April 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an opinion that shocked the disability rights community. In Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., the Court ruled that compensatory damages for emotional distress may not be recovered by claimants who sue for disability discrimination under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 504) and section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010..

Cummings involved a woman, Jane Cummings, who is both deaf and legally blind. Because of her disabilities, she communicates through American Sign Language (ASL)—her first and primary language—and cannot communicate …

Neuropsychological Malingering Determination: The Illusion Of Scientific Lie Detection, Chunlin Leonhard, Christoph Leonhard

Georgia Law Review

Humans believe that other humans lie, especially when stakes are high. Stakes can be very high in a courtroom, from substantial amounts of monetary damages in civil litigation to liberty or life in criminal cases. One of the most frequently disputed issues in U.S. courts is whether litigants are malingering when they allege physical or mental conditions for which they are seeking damages or which would allow them to avoid criminal punishment. Understandably, creating a scientific method to detect lies is very appealing to all persons engaged in lie detection. Neuropsychologists claim that they can use neuropsychological assessment tests (Malingering …

Anything You Say (Or Like, Repost, And Quote) Can Be Used Against You, Alexandra Heyl

Catholic University Law Review

Social media allows users to exchange thoughts and ideas without saying a single word. Whether a user “likes” “reposts” or “quotes” third-party content, a user publicly interacts with content authored by someone else with the click of a button. Is this online activity more akin to a user making a statement, adopting a third-party’s statement, or not making a statement at all? Does it matter? Only certain statements can be used against you at trial. Federal Rule of Evidence (“Federal Rule”) 802(a) provides that “hearsay” is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. According to Federal …

The New People V. Collins: How Can Probabilistic Evidence Be Properly Admitted?, David Crump

Maine Law Review

The California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Collins is a staple in Evidence casebooks. An innovative assistant district attorney in the trial court had presented a mathematician who applied probabilities to questions about the perpetrators’ characteristics. The state supreme court disapproved the injection of an equation featuring what mathematicians call the “product rule.” The opinion contains thank-goodness-we-escaped-that-disaster reasoning and condemnation of this use of mathematics with probabilities. But the court’s analysis probably would be different if the case were decided today, as the “new” People v. Collins. Therefore, this Article considers what the author calls the new People v. …

Gender (Discrimination) Trouble, Katharine K. Baker

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Future Scope Of The Character Evidence Prohibition: The Contextual Statutory Construction Argument That Could Finally Force The Policy Discussion, Paul F. Rothstein, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The general prohibition of character evidence is one of the most important doctrines in American Evidence law. Since the Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment forbids status offenses in adult prosecutions, the doctrine has constitutional overtones. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) applies the prohibition to evidence of an accused’s other crimes and wrongs. Since such evidence can be inflammatory and the Rule’s limits sometimes confusing, Rule 404(b) generates more published opinions than any other provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Although the prohibition extends beyond other crimes, most of the controversy swirls around the Rule’s application to …

Expert Malpractice, James R. Steiner-Dillon

Akron Law Faculty Publications

The provision of expert testimony in litigation has become a big business. The paradigmatic testifying expert is no longer the “amateur” expert who maintains a separate professional identity and testifies only once, or at most sporadically, in litigation to which their expertise is uniquely pertinent. Rather, they are a professional provider of litigation support services who spends a substantial part of their time, and derives a substantial part of their income from, consulting on pending or contemplated lawsuits. Legal rules concerning the provision of expert testimony continue to apply the former, obsolete paradigm of the testifying expert. This conflict of …

On Proving Mabrus And Zorgs, Michael S. Pardo

Vanderbilt Law Review

An unfortunate disconnect exists in modern evidence scholarship. On one hand, a rich literature has explored the process of legal proof in general and legal standards of proof in particular. Call this the "macro level" of legal proof. On the other hand, a rich literature has explored the admissibility rules that regulate the admission or exclusion of particular types of evidence (such as hearsay, character evidence, expert testimony, and so on). Call this the "micro level" of legal proof. Little attention, however, has focused on how the issues discussed in these two distinct strands of evidence scholarship intertwine. One important …

The Superfluous Rules Of Evidence, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

There are few American legal codifications as successful as the Federal Rules of Evidence. But this success masks the project’s uncertain beginnings. The drafters of the Federal Rules worried that lawmakers would not adopt the new rules and that judges would not follow them. As a result, they included at least thirty rules of evidence that do not, in fact, alter the admissibility of evidence. Instead, these rules: (1) market the rules project, and (2) guide judges away from anticipated errors in applying the (other) nonsuperfluous rules.

Given the superfluous rules’ covert mission, it should not be surprising that the …