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.

From Victim To Defendant: Battered Woman Syndrome In Support Of Duress, Samantha Casimiro

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

Section I of this article will discuss the origin and phases of BWS as well as its designation as a subcategory of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (hereinafter PTSD) and discuss the prevalence of domestic violence in our society. Section II will layout the elements of a duress defense and analyze the objective reasonableness standard as compared to the subjective reasonableness standard used in other defenses, such as self-defense, explaining that there is a level of subjectiveness that must be considered regardless of the applicable approach. Section III will analyze cases and opinions of the federal circuit courts that support the admission …

From Victim To Villain: How Gendered Narratives Shape Drug Courier Trials, Serafina C. Russo

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This article examines how gendered stereotypes, coercive trafficking dynamics, and permissive evidentiary practices create systemic bias in criminal prosecutions of women, particularly in drug trafficking cases. It highlights how courts often allow expert testimony and generalized narratives that blur neutral analysis with character judgment, inviting jurors to rely on cultural assumptions rather than objective facts. The “blind mule” phenomenon demonstrates the human cost, disproportionately affecting women from marginalized backgrounds, and reflects violations of due process and the presumption of innocence. The article argues for judicial and legislative reforms, including rigorous enforcement and clarification of Rule 704(b), to prevent stereotypes from …

Proving The Future In Criminal Cases, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Expert opinion about dangerousness—the risk of reoffending—is commonly introduced at sentencing, criminal commitment proceedings, and some types of pretrial detention hearings. This Essay argues that the rules governing the admissibility of scientific evidence should apply to this testimony and that, on that assumption, such evidence must be (1) “material” (logically relevant, empirically generalizable, and epistemologically germane), (2) “probative” (a measure of accuracy, which is more stringent when the evidence is from an expert), (3) helpful to the factfinder (through promoting “incremental validity”), and (4) presented in a non-prejudicial manner (i.e., in a way that minimizes the possibility it will be …

Identifying The Guilty, Protecting The Innocent: Amending The Federal Rules Of Evidence To Address Admissibility Of Eyewitness Identification, Louisa M. A. Heiny

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Mistaken eyewitness identification is among the most common factors in wrongful conviction cases. Indeed, hundreds of innocent defendants have been convicted for a crime they did not commit, their fate sealed by an eyewitness who convincingly, but mistakenly, testified, “That’s the one!”

Scientific researchers have documented the fallibility of eyewitness identification for decades. Their collective work has produced recommendations for eyewitness identification reform, focusing on procedural problems most likely to result in mistaken identification. The law in this area, however, has not kept pace with the science. Rather than representing a cohesive series of safeguards against inaccurate eyewitness identifications, federal …

Admitting Science: Problems With Current Admissibility Standards, William O'Donohue, Sneha Gupta

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Attorneys use expert testimony to advance legal positions in courtrooms. Because expert testimony can have tremendous influence over judges and juries, it is admitted only if it meets specific admissibility standards, i.e., Frye and Daubert. These standards provide different admissibility criteria, have been adopted by distinct sets of jurisdictions, and, we argue, are of questionable validity. These standards are attempts to ensure that only knowledge is admissible and are, then, essentially an epistemic matter. Science serves as a proxy for knowledge because science is the epistemic process that has been successful at generating knowledge. However, both epistemology and the philosophy …

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 …

Race, Gatekeeping, Magical Words, And The Rules Of Evidence, Bennet Capers --

Vanderbilt Law Review

Although it might not be apparent from the Federal Rules of Evidence themselves, or the common law that preceded them, there is a long history in this country of tying evidence-what is deemed relevant, what is deemed trustworthy-to race. And increasingly, evidence scholars are excavating that history. Indeed, not just excavating, but showing how that history has racial effects that continue into the present.

One area that has escaped racialized scrutiny-at least of the type I am interested in-is that of expert testimony. Even in my own work on race and evidence, I have avoided discussion of expert testimony. In …

The Consensus Rule: A New Approach To Scientific Evidence, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Founded on good intentions but unrealistic expectations, the dominant Daubert framework for handling expert and scientific evidence should be scrapped. Daubert asks judges and jurors to make substantively expert determinations, a task they are epistemically incompetent to perform as laypersons. As an alternative, this Article proposes a new framework for handling expert evidence. It draws from the social and philosophical literature on expertise and begins with a basic question: How can laypersons make intelligent decisions about expert topics? From there, it builds its evidentiary approach, which ultimately results in an inference rule focused on expert communities. Specifically, when dealing with …

Proving Copying, Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Peter S. Menell

Faculty Scholarship

Proof that a defendant actually copied from a copyrighted work is a critical part of a claim for copyright infringement. Indeed, absent such copying, there is no infringement. The most common method of proving copying involves the use of circumstantial evidence, consisting of proof that a defendant had “access” to the protected work, and a showing of “similarities” between the copy and the protected work. In inferring copying from the combination of such evidence, courts have for many decades developed a framework known as the “inverse ratio rule,” which allows them to modulate the level of proof needed on access …

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 …

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.

Conference On Best Practices For Managing Daubert Questions, Daniel J. Capra, David G. Campbell, Debra A. Livingston, James P. Bassett, Shelly Dick, Traci L. Lovitt, Thomas Marten, Kathryn N. Nester, Thomas D. Schroeder, Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Timothy Lau, Vince Chhabria, John Z. Lee, William H. Orrick Iii, Edmund A. Sargus Jr., Sarah A. Vance, Edward K. Cheng

Faculty Scholarship

This article is a transcript of the Philip D. Reed Lecture Series Conference on Best Practices for Managing Daubert Questions, held on October 25, 2019, at Vanderbilt Law School under the sponsorship of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules. The transcript has been lightly edited and represents the panelists’ individual views only and in no way reflects those of their affiliated firms, organizations, law schools, or the judiciary.

Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

The "Damned" In A Flashover State: Arson And The Use Of Scientific Methods And Expert Testimony In West Virginia, Christopher W. Maidona

West Virginia Law Review Online

The fire moved quickly through the house as Cameron Todd Willingham screamed for his children from the front porch. Inside the blaze were his three children. Firefighters arrived, uncoiled hoses, and aimed water at the raging fire. However, all three Willingham children died that night from smoke inhalation.

News of the December 23, 1991, tragedy spread throughout Corsicana, Texas. Meanwhile, investigators sought to determine what caused the fire. The investigators “toured the perimeter of the house, taking notes and photographs, like archeologists mapping out a ruin.” In the kitchen, they found smoke and heat damage—signs the fire had not originated …

Introduction, Shari S. Diamond, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

Experts bedeviled the legal system long before seventeenth-century Salem, when the town's good citizens relied on youthful accusers and witchcraft experts to identify the devil's servants in their midst. As in Salem, claims of expertise have often been questioned and objections raised about the bases of expert knowledge. Expertise, then and now, did not have to be based on science; but the importance of science and the testimony of scientific experts has since medieval times been woven into the fabric of the English jurisprudence that Americans inherited. In cases as long ago as 1299 we find examples of courts seeking …

"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …

Life After Daubert V. Merrell Dow: Maine As A Case Law Laboratory For Evidence Rule 702 Without Frye, Leigh Stephens Mccarthy

Maine Law Review

In reaching its recent decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court grappled not with case law but with fundamental questions about the nature of science and its role in law. The court in Daubert addressed the problematic issue of admissibility of expert scientific testimony. In the end the Court rejected as an exclusionary rule the venerable standard set in 1923 by Frye v. United States. Frye held that scientific testimony was to be excluded unless it had gained “general acceptance” in its field. Daubert held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence …

Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. Mccormack

Maine Law Review

Defendants regularly argue that a Review Board's decision must be overturned because it is not supported by expert testimony. Boards counter that they are qualified, by virtue of their role as the guardians of the standards for their profession, to determine the appropriateness of a defendant's conduct without the assistance of expert testimony. When courts address these arguments, they routinely ask if expert testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care in disciplinary hearings before a professional licensing board. Courts answer this question differently. In fact there is a seeming schism among the states about the importance of expert …

Debunked, Discredited, But Still Defended: Why Prosecutors Resist Challenges To Bad Science And Some Suggestions For Crafting Remedies For Wrongful Conviction Based On Changed Science, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Flawed science has significantly contributed to wrongful convictions. Courts struggle with how to address such convictions when the mistaken science (such as bogus expert claims about the differences between accidental fires and intentionally set ones) significantly affected the guilty verdict but there is no DNA evidence to directly exonerate the accused. My short piece explores why prosecutors often defend bad science. Mistakes in science tend to serve the prosecution, but there are other more subtle factors that explain prosecutors’ reluctance to address flawed forensic testimony. Such reluctance may arise from fondness for the status quo and a resistance to subverting …

How Sound Is The Science? Applying Daubert To Biomechanical Experts’ Injury Causation Opinions, Loren Peck

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta

Brooklyn Law Review

In civil litigation, the big business of retaining experts has raised concerns about the integrity of the adversarial process and undermined the role that expert testimony plays at trial. Due to a rising demand for expert testimony, it is common for the same expert to testify for opposing clients. When a client hires an expert who has been previously retained by that client’s adversary, a conflict of interest arises. Such experts may share confidential information with their new client to the detriment of the former client—triggering the expert disqualification test for conflicts of interest. Most state and federal courts do …

The Science Of Gatekeeping: Using The Structure Of Scientific Inference To Draw The Line Between Admissibility And Weight In Expert Testimony, Christopher Slobogin, David Faigman, John Monahan

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

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 …

The Increasing Use Of Challenges To Expert Evidence Under Daubert And Rule 702 In Patent Litigation, Douglas G. Smith

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Cross-Racial Identifications: Solutions To The "They All Look Alike" Effect, Laura Connelly

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

On a late summer evening in August of 1997, Nathan Brown was in his apartment rocking his young daughter to sleep when the police knocked on his door. The police sought Brown, one of a few Black men in his apartment complex, after a young White woman said she had been assaulted by a shirtless Black man wearing black shorts with strong body odor walking through the complex’s courtyard. Minutes later the police took Brown outside and put him in the patrol car for a one-on-one “showup.” They brought him out by himself to see the victim wearing black shorts …

Polygraph Admission Through Compulsory Process, Timothy J. Walsh

Akron Law Review

Polygraph evidence is included within the broad category of expert testimony, yet it is treated quite differently from other forms of expert testimony. If admissible at all for the defense, polygraph evidence almost always requires the stipulation of the prosecution for it to be admitted into court. Such a requirement vests solely, within the hands of a prosecutor, the ability to eliminate that proof which may be necessary for the defendant to effectively prove his innocence. Furthermore, in some jurisdictions a defendant cannot even place his faith in the sympathy of a prosecutor. Instead, a rule bars him from proving …

The Trial Judge As Gatekeeper For Scientific Evidence: Will Ohio Rule Of Evidence 102 Frustrate The Ohio Courts' Role Under Daubert V. Merrell Dow?, Michael Lepp, Chrisopher B. Mcneil

Akron Law Review

This article considers the role of the trial court in responding to the changes wrought by scientific innovation. Particular consideration is given to the impact likely to be realized in Ohio trial courts from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

[...]In order to appreciate the significance of Ohio Evidence Rule 102 in this context, it is helpful to first examine some of the events leading to Daubert, especially the application (and in some instances, the rejection) of Frye both in Ohio and at the federal level. Following that, this article will …

Get On Board For The Ride Of Your Life! The Ups, The Downs, The Twists, And The Turns Of The Applicability Of The "Gatekeeper" Function To Scientific And Non-Scientific Expert Evidence: Kumho'sexpansion Of Daubert, Leslie Morsek

Akron Law Review

This Comment examines the history of scientific and non-scientific expert evidence, its current status, and the future of scientific and non-scientific evidence based on recent court decisions. Part II explores the background of these issues by examining the earlier standard for admitting expert testimony, the effect of Congress’ promulgation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the influential cases in this area. Part III analyzes the importance of subjecting nonscientific expert testimony to the same rigors as scientific expert testimony. Lastly, Part IV predicts the future of expert evidence.

Burris V. State: Suggestions For The Continued Development Of The Rule For Admitting The Testimony Of Gang Experts, Michael Jacko

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Juror Perceptions Of Eyewitness Identification Evidence, Timothy G. Wykes

Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive)

Jurors rely on eyewitness testimony in deciding a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Archival analyses of hundreds of post-conviction DNA exonerations have identified eyewitness misidentification as the highest individual factor contributing to wrongful convictions (Innocence Project, 2014). Internationally, criminal justice systems have employed procedural safeguards (PSs) to educate juries on factors affecting eyewitness identification accuracy. Two such safeguards include the introduction of eyewitness expert testimony during trial proceedings and the reading of cautionary instructions by a presiding judge. In an independent factorial design, this research sought to examine the effects of a model judicial caution drafted by the Ontario Judicial Council …