Evidence Commons^™

"Other Accident" Evidence In Product Liability Actions: Highly Probative Or An Accident Waiting To Happen?, Robert A. Sachs

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 702: Testimony By Experts

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 704: Opinion On Ultimate Issue

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 801(D)(1): Prior Statement By Witness

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(3): Then Existing Mental, Emotional, Or Physical Condition

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(4): Statements For Purposes Of Medical Diagnosis Or Treatment

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Comparison And Analysis Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence And New York Evidentiary Law, The Editors

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(18): Learned Treatises

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 901: Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admissibility Of Dna Evidence

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 1001: The "Original Document" Rule

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(1): Present Sense Impression

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 804(B)(1): Former Testimony

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Text, Texts, Or Ad Hoc Determinations: Interpretation Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Daubert And The Quest For Value-Free "Scientific Knowledge" In The Courtroom, Alexander Morgan Capron

University of Richmond Law Review

In a world that grows more technologically complex every day and in which scientific research continually expands both our understanding of, and our questions about, the operation of the natural and man-made world, it is hardly surprising that science should show up with increasing frequency in our court-rooms. Science itself is sometimes at issue, for example, in proceedings on allegations of scientific misconduct or in disputes over the ownership or patentability of technologies. But more frequently, science enters in aid of resolving a case in which a complex question of causation is at issue. To establish or rebut causation, each …

"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.

The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay surveys three major transformations in state and federal rules of evidence since the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules have not only inspired a movement toward codification in the states, they have also liberalized the admission of expert testimony and hearsay. This partially explains thirteen states' reluctance to codify. Judges have furthered this trend by admitting far more discretionary hearsay evidence than Congress intended. Professor Rossi doubts this expansion of the hearsay exceptions would have occurred without the adoption of the FRE and suggests that the newly formed Advisory Committee will produce greater substantive changes …

Classical Rhetoric, Practical Reasoning, And The Law Of Evidence , Eileen A. Scallen

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Theory Of Verbal Completeness, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

In this Article I will endorse the view that the most important modem function of the completeness rule is to trump otherwise applicable exclusionary rules, though not every rule in every instance. I will also offer the general proposition that it should almost always trump one large and important class of exclusionary rules, those based upon the "best evidence" principle, that is, the principle that parties should present to the tribunal the epistemically best evidence available to them on a given litigated issue.

Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones

University of Richmond Law Review

The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (the Rules) resulted in a more liberal standard for the admission and use of various forms of evidence. For example, the Rules altered the definition of "relevant evidence" increasing the scope of evidence that can be presented to a jury. Also, the Rules per- mit prior inconsistent statements to be admitted as substantive evidence rather than for impeachment purposes only. The Advisory Committee enunciated these changes, and other changes resulting from the adoption of the Rules, in their notes accompanying the Rules.

Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In Tome v United States, for the fifth time in eight years, the Supreme Court decided a case presenting the problem of how a child's allegations of sexual abuse should be presented in court. Often the child who charges that an adult abused her is unable to testify at trial, or at least unable to testify effectively under standard procedures. These cases therefore raise intriguing and difficult questions related to the rule against hearsay and to an accused's right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him. One would hardly guess that, however, from the rather arid debate …

Intellectual Coherence In An Evidence Code, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Evidence (Federal Rules or Rules) were created in large part to promote uniformity and predictability in federal trials by providing a relatively instructive guide for judges and lawyers concerning the admissibility of evidence. As with any codification, success in this respect requires, among other things, that there be a considerable degree of intellectual coherence among the code's various provisions. The Federal Rules fall short of intellectual coherence in a number of areas. They contain contradictory and inconsistent mandates that do not make theoretical sense and therefore accord the trial judge almost unlimited discretion in these areas. …

Proposed Evidence Rules 413 To 415 – Some Problems And Recommendations, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Section 320935 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 proposes three new Federal Rules of Evidence-Rules 413-415 – that would liberalize the admissibility of "propensity evidence" in criminal and civil cases involving allegations of sexual assault and child molestation. This Article expresses some reservations about, and suggests some alternatives to, Proposed Rules 413-415.

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 …

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 …

Hearsay, The New York And Federal Rules Of Evidence: What's The Difference?, Richard T. Farrell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Brief Look At New York's Efforts To Codify Its Law Of Evidence, Barbara C. Salken

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dangers Of "General Observations" On Expert Scientific Testimony: A Comment On Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Robert F. Blomquist

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.