Evidence Commons^™

Rule 408: Compromise And Offers To Compromise

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 901: Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(8)(C): Public Records And Reports

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Restrictions On Law Enforcement Investigation And Prosecution Of Crime, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Discovering Who We Are: An English Perspective On The Simpson Trial, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Admissibility Of Investigatory Reports In § 1983 Civil Rights Actions - A User's Manual, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this article the author pulls together a history of expert witnesses in common law systems. Various issues are explored regarding expert witness testimony, including: the historical underpinnings of the practice, how Daubert controls that issue in modern times, rules of evidence, psychological science, and professional ethics.

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 …

General Evidentiary Objections Still Valid In Maryland, Dinah S. Leventhal

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Meaning Of "Facts Or Data" In Federal Rule Of Evidence 703: The Significance Of The Supreme Court's Decision To Rely On Federal Rule 702 In Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Edward J. Imwinkelried

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Codifying The Rule On Expert Testimony: Why Traditional Analysis Should Be Generally Acceptable, Kevin M. Carroll

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Residual Hearsay Exceptions: A New Opening?, Jeffrey E. Greene

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Is A "Crime Relevant To Credibility"?, James A. Protin

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidentiary Use (And Misuse) Of The Civil Defendant's Financial Status, Karen M. Grundy

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Plain Feel Doctrine In Washington: An Opportunity To Provide Greater Protections Of Privacy To Citizens Of This State, Laura T. Bradley

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment argues that Washington should return to an independent analysis of search and seizure doctrine under article I, section 7 of the state constitution and reject the admission of contraband seized during the course of a pat-down frisk. The decisions in Hudson and Dickerson have established an unnecessary and unworkable standard, and involve an increased invasion of personal privacy without the counter-balancing need to protect the safety of others. The plain feel doctrine as announced in Dickerson and Hudson developed from two well-established concepts in search and seizure law-the Terry frisk of persons to discover weapons and the plain …

The Maryland Rules Of Evidence - The New Maryland Rules Of Evidence: Survey, Analysis And Critique, Alan D. Hornstein

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Experts, Liars, And Guns For Hire: A Different Perspective On The Qualification Of Technical Expert Witnesses, Christopher P. Murphy

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 …

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Epistemiology And Legal Process, Margaret G. Farrell

Cardozo Law Review

Justice Blackmun's majority opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. acknowledges that law and science have different goals, but it fails to recognize the implications of those differences for legal process. Recent increases in the scientifically-based claims brought in the federal courts, and in the size and complexity of the litigation in which such claims are made, have raised the stakes in the debate. At the same time, scientific concepts of relativity, uncertainty, and multiple causation are at odds with simple, legal notions about fact-finding and cause and effect. This disparity between legal and scientific understandings over the admission …

Dna And Daubert, Barry C. Scheck

Cardozo Law Review

The most intriguing aspect of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is that the Supreme Court never applied its new analytic framework for the admissibility of scientific evidence to the facts of the case. Either the deviltry, or the genius, of the Daubert decision lies in the details.