Evidence Commons^™

Toys As Evidence, Randall K. Johnson

Faculty Works

This Essay asks and answers a single question, which was posed during a recent symposium at the National Museum of Toys & Miniatures. Could the study of revealed preferences, which is the idea that observed behaviors are the best indicator of one’s beliefs, improve our collective understanding about what constitutes unlawful discrimination in certain U.S. markets? A possible answer, which is informed by the Brown v. Board of Education decision, is the study of revealed preferences may improve our collective understanding for three reasons.

One reason is the study of revealed preferences provides a window into how some producers and …

Keeping Evidence Real, Anya Bernstein, Julia Simon-Kerr

Faculty Scholarship

Commentators largely agree that the Federal Rules of Evidence have problems. Expert testimony standards admit junk science. Impeachment rules chill defendant testimony. The hearsay regime defies consistent application and obstructs self-representation. The list goes on: Many rules fail to assist, or affirmatively thwart, jurors trying to make good decisions. Such shortcomings disproportionately harm those with the least power in the system, raising profound questions about whether the evidence code serves its statutory mandate—to promote truth and justice in court proceedings. In the face of widely recognized problems, the government body charged with managing the evidence code—the Advisory Committee on Evidence …

Breaking Patterns Of Abuse: How Amending The Federal Rules Of Evidence Would Strengthen Domestic Violence Prosecutions, Isabelle Ryan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trial By Character, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In this Article, I argue that courts regularly deviate from Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which prohibits character evidence—evidence of a defendant’s past misdeeds offered to prove that the defendant acted in conformity with a certain character trait on the occasion in question. These deviations undermine the fairness of a trial and the presumption of innocence. The Article addresses this problem in three ways. First, it explains how courts have misinterpreted Rule 404(b)—an error that I call the permitted-purpose fallacy—and how they have fortified this misinterpretation with a body of flawed principles and precedent. Second, it reports the results of …

Say It Once, Say It Twice: Abrogating The Rebuttal Requirement Of The Prior Consistent Statement Hearsay Rule, Natashja Atherton

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) limits the introduction of a witness’s prior statements during court proceedings, even if those statements are consistent with the witness’s in-court testimony. A witness’s previous declarations can only be solicited if (a) the adversarial party directly attacks the witness’s credibility and (b) the offered prior consistent statement directly rebuts the basis of the attack. This Comment refers to these restrictions as the “rebuttal requirement” of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) and argues for its revocation to make statements substantially consistent with a witness’s in-court testimony admissible, subject to the other rules of evidence, regardless of whether the witness’s …

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 …

The Difference A Year Makes: The Admissibility Of Expert Opinion Testimony Under The 2023 Amendment To Federal Rule Of Evidence 702, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

Other Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 …

Judges Should Be Discerning Consensus, Not Evaluating Scientific Expertise, David S. Caudill, Harry Collins, Robert Evans

University of Cincinnati Law Review

One of the most constructive critiques of the Daubert admissibility regime is Professor Edward Cheng’s recent proposal for a new Consensus Rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rejecting the notion that judges and juries have the capacity to evaluate scientific expertise, Cheng’s proposal would eliminate Daubert hearings—and judicial gatekeeping concerning expert testimony—and require judges and juries, in their verdicts, to follow consensus in the relevant scientific community. Significantly, Cheng argues that judges and juries would have an easier time identifying consensus than they have in deciding between experts who disagree.

We find Cheng’s emphasis on consensus compelling, and …

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 …

A Proposal To Replace The Hearsay Rules, Richard D. Friedman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This essay proposes a set of rules to replace entirely the 800 series of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the hearsay rules, with a very different, and relatively compact, set of procedural rules. (The current hearsay rules run over 3000 words; the proposed rules run under 1000.) The change will improve truth-determination, make trials more efficient, and better protect the rights of criminal defendants and other parties. There would, of course, be some adjustment period for lawyers and judges as they get accustomed to a different system, but I am confident that it would soon be easier to administer than …

Long Live The Federal Rules Of Evidence!, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

Faculty Articles

The Federal Rules of Evidence have been pronounced dead. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Evidence have recently been declared dormant, stagnant, frozen, lethargic, and yes, deceased. In The Living Rules of Evidence, 170 U. Pa. L. Rev. 937 (March 2022), Professor Alexander Nunn claims that the Rules are lifeless, incapable of any meaningful change, and littered with anachronistic and even dangerous standards and provisions. To blame for the moribund state of the Federal Rules of Evidence is the bureaucratic and complex federal rulemaking process that requires amendments to traverse multiple constituencies in a multi-year process before taking effect. As a …

Correcting Federal Rule Of Evidence 404 To Clarify The Inadmissibility Of Character Evidence, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Courts misinterpret Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) as an exception to Rule 404(b)(1)’s prohibition on character evidence rather than a mere clarification that emphasizes the permissibility of other-acts evidence whose relevance does not rely on propensity reasoning. This misinterpretation turns the rule against character evidence on its head by effectively replacing Rule 404 with a Rule 403 balancing—and one that incorrectly treats character inferences as probative rather than prejudicial, thereby favoring admissibility rather than exclusion. Consequently, as currently interpreted, Rule 404(b)(2) generates substantial unpredictability and verdicts based on conduct not at issue in a case.

I therefore propose that the …

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 …

Binding Hercules: A Proposal For Bench Trials, Maggie Wittlin

Vanderbilt Law Review

If you were a federal judge presiding over a bench trial, you probably would not want the Federal Rules of Evidence to apply to you. Sure, you might want to be insulated from privileged information. But you are, no doubt, capable of cool-headed, rational reasoning, and you have a realistic understanding of how the world works; if you got evidence that was unreliable or easy to overvalue, you could handle it appropriately. But surely, you would have the same desire if you were a juror--it is not your position as a judge that makes you want all the relevant evidence. …

A New Baseline For Character Evidence, Julia Simon-Kerr

Vanderbilt Law Review

Perhaps no rules of evidence are as contested as the rules governing character evidence. To ward off the danger of a fact finder's mistaking evidence of character for evidence of action, the rules exclude much contextual information about the people at the center of the proceeding. This prohibition on character propensity evidence is a bedrock principle of American law. Yet despite its centrality, it is uncertain of both content and application. Contributing to this uncertainty is a definitional lacuna. Although a logical first question in thinking about character evidence is how to define it, the Federal Rules of Evidence have …

Introduction, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law Review

Prior to the eighteenth century, cartographers would often fill uncharted areas of maps with sea monsters, other artwork, or even rank speculation-a phenomenon labeled "horror vacui," or fear of empty spaces. For example, in Paolo Forlani's world map of 1565, a yet- to-be-discovered southern continent was depicted with anticipated mountain chains and animals. The possible explanations for horror vacui are varied, but one reason may have been a desire "to hide [the mapmakers'] ignorance." Not until "maps began to be thought of as more purely scientific instruments . . . [did] cartographers . . . restrain their concern about spaces …

How Machines Reveal The Gaps In Evidence Law, Andrea Roth --

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Symposium asks participants to reimagine the Federal Rules of Evidence on the fiftieth anniversary of their effective date. As part of that conversation, this short Essay argues that the Rules of Evidence contain critical gaps in terms of empowering litigants to meaningfully challenge the credibility of evidence. Specifically, the increasing use of machine-generated proof has made clear that evidence law does not offer sufficiently meaningful opportunities to scrutinize conveyances of information whose flaws cannot be exposed through cross-examination. These underscrutinized conveyances include machine-generated output, information conveyed by animals, and statements made by absent hearsay declarants. Even for some witnesses …

One Size Does Not Fit All: Alternatives To The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Henry Zhuhao Wang

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence have been so successful that many people equate them to the whole field of evidence law. But this is a false equivalence. Our world is complicated, diversified, and dynamic. So, too, is evidence law, which is like a rainforest in which the Federal Rules are simply the largest tree, not a forest unto themselves. In fact, the Federal Rules of Evidence are limited in their applicability due to three fundamental assumptions: the presence of a jury trial, an adversarial process, and witness oral testimony. The universe of dispute resolution, however, extends far beyond a contour …

The Superfluous Rules Of Evidence, Jeffrey Bellin

Vanderbilt Law Review

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 …

Evidence-Based Hearsay, Justin Sevier

Vanderbilt Law Review

The hearsay rule initially appears straightforward and sensible. It forbids witnesses from repeating secondhand, untested gossip in court, and who among us prefers to resolve legal disputes through untested gossip? Nonetheless, the rule's unpopularity in the legal profession is well-known and far-reaching. It is almost cliche to say that the rule confounds law students, confuses practicing attorneys, and vexes trial judges, who routinely make incorrect calls at trial with respect to hearsay admissibility. The rule fares no better in the halls of legal academia. Although defenses exist, scholars have unleashed a parade of pejoratives at the rule over the years, …

Shifting The Male Gaze Of Evidence, Teneille R. Brown

Vanderbilt Law Review

Rationality is deeply embedded in both the Rules themselves and the ways they are interpreted. David Leonard stated that rationality "lies at the heart of modern evidentiary principles" because relevance itself is "grounded in rationality." Of the many reasons we have evidence rules-to streamline trials, foster legitimacy and predictability, and promote due process-encouraging "rational fact- finding" is often at the top of this list.

In contemporary evidence law the hegemonic goal-of-rationality is "often taken for granted" and can be traced "from Bentham through Wigmore to the present day." It is a "remarkably homogeneous" view that has "dominated legal scholarship for …

The Federal Rules Of Emojis: A Proposed Framework For Handling Emoji Evidence In Trial Contexts, Marilyn Hurzeler

Fordham Law Review

Emojis are 3,633 ubiquitous symbols-as-communication used by 92 percent of internet users. These tiny yet influential pieces of evidence hold the power to complete, enhance, mitigate, and flip the meaning of surrounding text. Consequently, court references to emojis have grown exponentially in the last five years. As emojis have become a cornerstone of digital discourse, courts have increasingly encountered the significant impact of emojis on parties’ legal claims. A guide for handling of emoji evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), therefore, is important to afford proper treatment to this relatively new evidentiary form.

This Note discusses how the …

Lost In Translation: The Best Evidence Rule And Foreign-Language Recordings In Federal Court, Liesa L. Richter

Faculty Articles

The federal court system and the Federal Rules of Evidence are designed around the English language. As the United States becomes increasingly diverse and multicultural, however, a growing number of Americans speak a primary language other than English. The federal courts and the Federal Rules of Evidence must accommodate parties, witnesses, and evidence presented in a foreign language, notwithstanding their English-only orientation. Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, known more colloquially as the Best Evidence Rule, assumes that evidence will come in only one, English flavor, however. The Best Evidence Rule is powerful and straightforward, ensuring that jurors have access to …

(Partial) Clarity: Eliminating The Confusion About The Regulation Of The "Fact"Ual Bases For Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Edward J. Imwinkelried

William & Mary Law Review

Expert testimony is offered at the vast majority of trials in courts of general jurisdiction in the United States. Federal Rules of Evidence 702-06 govern the admissibility of such testimony. In its May 15, 2021, report accompanying the most recent proposed amendment to Rule 702, the Advisory Committee on the Evidence Rules asserts that “many courts” have misapplied Rule 702 by holding that questions as to whether “the expert has relied on sufficient facts or data ... are questions of weight and not admissibility.” Rule 702(b) states that to be admissible, an expert opinion must be “based on sufficient fact …

"The" Rule: Modernizing The Potent, But Overlooked, Rule Of Witness Sequestration, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Starting with its illustration in the Apocrypha and continuing into the modern day both in courtrooms and in ubiquitous criminal procedurals, one evidence rule has proven so powerful that it has become known as “THE” Rule of Evidence. The rule of witness sequestration demands that multiple witnesses to the same events be examined separately from one another to prevent them from, consciously or subconsciously, tailoring their testimony to ensure that it remains consistent. Witness sequestration is conceptually simplistic and famously mighty. Yet, this bedrock protection against inaccurate trial testimony is imperiled by conflicting interpretations of Federal Rule of Evidence 615, …

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 …

The Threat Of Deepfakes In Litigation: Raising The Authentication Bar To Combat Falsehood, Agnieszka Mcpeak

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Deepfakes are all over the internet—from shape-shifting comedians and incoherent politicians to disturbingly realistic fake pornography. Emerging technology makes it easier than ever to create a convincing deepfake. What used to take significant time and money to develop is now widely available, often for free, thanks to rapid advances in deepfake technology.

Deepfakes threaten individual rights and even democracy. But their impact on litigation should not be overlooked. The US adversarial system of justice is built on a foundation of seeking out the truth to arrive at a just result. The Federal Rules of Evidence serve as an important framework …

“Rule Of Inclusion" Confusion, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

Some rules of evidence are complex. The federal rules governing the admissibility of hearsay statements,' for example, include at least forty different provisions. Numerous judges and scholars have commented on the complexity of the hearsay rules. Not all rules of evidence are complex, however. For example, the federal rules governing the admissibility of character evidence are relatively straightforward: evidence that is offered for the purpose of proving character is inadmissible, subject to a few well-defined exceptions. Despite this relative straightforwardness, many of the federal circuit courts of appeals have overlaid the rules regarding character evidence particularly Rule 404(b)--with unnecessary interpretive …