Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Law (1448)
- Criminal Procedure (1358)
- Constitutional Law (947)
- Courts (768)
- Litigation (643)
-
- Civil Procedure (525)
- Science and Technology Law (458)
- State and Local Government Law (452)
- Torts (436)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (411)
- Jurisprudence (410)
- Fourth Amendment (391)
- Supreme Court of the United States (386)
- Judges (374)
- Law and Society (368)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (347)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (343)
- Contracts (334)
- Legislation (334)
- Legal Profession (331)
- Family Law (329)
- Intellectual Property Law (321)
- Administrative Law (320)
- Law and Psychology (316)
- Internet Law (308)
- Medical Jurisprudence (305)
- International Law (298)
- Legal History (297)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (840)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (380)
- Seattle University School of Law (238)
- West Virginia University (218)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (205)
-
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (174)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (164)
- William & Mary Law School (157)
- University of Richmond (150)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (142)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (137)
- University of Kentucky (133)
- Mercer University School of Law (117)
- University of Washington School of Law (112)
- Cleveland State University (111)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (106)
- Case Western Reserve University School of Law (96)
- Pepperdine University (92)
- University of Miami Law School (91)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (83)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (81)
- American University Washington College of Law (80)
- University of Colorado Law School (80)
- UIC School of Law (78)
- Cornell University Law School (77)
- Fordham Law School (77)
- University of Georgia School of Law (68)
- Duke Law (65)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (63)
- Brooklyn Law School (56)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (1364)
- Testimony (238)
- Hearsay (223)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (214)
- Admissibility (202)
-
- Witnesses (187)
- Expert testimony (121)
- Discovery (115)
- Criminal law (114)
- Litigation (110)
- Sixth Amendment (106)
- Confrontation Clause (105)
- United States Supreme Court (101)
- Police (87)
- Cross-examination (86)
- Exclusionary rule (85)
- Law (83)
- Scientific evidence (83)
- Expert evidence (81)
- Trials (78)
- Criminal procedure (76)
- Due process (76)
- Criminal Law (73)
- Witness (73)
- Fourth Amendment (71)
- Fifth Amendment (68)
- Constitutional Law (65)
- Daubert (64)
- Juries (64)
- Courts (61)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Michigan Law Review (542)
- Faculty Scholarship (310)
- Articles (241)
- Seattle University Law Review (230)
- West Virginia Law Review (215)
-
- Cardozo Law Review (210)
- Faculty Publications (197)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (132)
- Indiana Law Journal (131)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (127)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (122)
- Mercer Law Review (117)
- Touro Law Review (115)
- Kentucky Law Journal (109)
- Cleveland State Law Review (98)
- Buffalo Law Review (93)
- University of Richmond Law Review (82)
- Washington Law Review (78)
- Pepperdine Law Review (68)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (67)
- Scholarly Works (64)
- Maryland Law Review (61)
- UIC Law Review (60)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (59)
- University of Miami Law Review (58)
- All Faculty Scholarship (56)
- Nevada Supreme Court Summaries (55)
- Richmond Journal of Law & Technology (51)
- Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications (50)
- Akron Law Review (47)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 3241 - 3270 of 5951
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Assessing Proposals For Mandatory Procedural Protections For Sentencings Under The Guidelines, Steven D. Clymer
Assessing Proposals For Mandatory Procedural Protections For Sentencings Under The Guidelines, Steven D. Clymer
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The federal sentencing guidelines have received sustained criticism from scholars, judges, and practitioners. Critics claim that the guidelines unwisely shift sentencing discretion from federal judges to prosecutors and probation officers; often mandate undeservedly harsh sentences; are complex, mechanistic, and bureaucratic; fail to achieve their goal of reducing sentencing disparity; and clog both district and appellate courts with litigation. Despite the attacks, some critics acknowledge that the guidelines will remain in force for the foreseeable future. While some nonetheless continue to urge abolition, others propose less ambitious reform, including enhancing the procedural protections available to criminal defendants at sentencing. Recommendations include …
New Developments In Scientific Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli
New Developments In Scientific Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Michigan Journal of International Law
18 U.S.C. § 3292 was enacted in order to meet a compelling prosecutorial need-the increasing necessity of obtaining evidence from abroad via procedures which are frequently time-consuming. However, the statute contains numerous ambiguities, as well as built-in disadvantages both to prosecutors and defendants, which diminish its value as a prosecutorial evidence-gathering device while increasing the possibility that defendants' rights and expectations will be violated. However, it is possible to interpret the statute in a manner which is consistent with its terms and purpose and which concomitantly preserves the rights of the Government and of grand jury targets.
The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth
The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth
Cleveland State Law Review
This Article will explore why these types of confessions, called self-inculpatory statements, should be admissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Part IIA of this Article will discuss the two-part test set forth in Ohio v. Roberts. Part IIB will address Lilly v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's first attempt to resolve whether statements against penal interest are sufficiently reliable to be admissible under the Confrontation Clause. Part IIB will also explore the distinction between self-inculpatory and non-self-inculpatory statements, what constitutes a "firmnly rooted" hearsay exception, and also the policy concerns behind creating a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception. Part …
Federal Rules Of Evidence: Raising The Bar On Adminissibility Of Expert Testimony: Can Your Expert Make The Grade After Kumho Tire V. Carmichael, Douglas B. Maddock Jr.
Federal Rules Of Evidence: Raising The Bar On Adminissibility Of Expert Testimony: Can Your Expert Make The Grade After Kumho Tire V. Carmichael, Douglas B. Maddock Jr.
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Expert Witness Predicament: Determining "Reliable" Under The Gatekeeping Test Of Daubert, Kumho, And Proposed Amended Rule 702 Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael H. Graham
The Expert Witness Predicament: Determining "Reliable" Under The Gatekeeping Test Of Daubert, Kumho, And Proposed Amended Rule 702 Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael H. Graham
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.
Are Prosecutorial Ethics Standards Different?, Kevin C. Mcmunigal
Are Prosecutorial Ethics Standards Different?, Kevin C. Mcmunigal
Faculty Publications
Once a prosecutor determines to employ an expert, a number of distinct decisions must be confronted-from choosing the expert, to complying with discovery obligations, to presenting the testimony at trial. Part I of this essay considers the selection of experts. Although improper selection of experts can be viewed as merely another aspect of presenting misleading testimony, we treat it separately in this essay because the literature typically ignores it. Part 1I examines the pretrial disclosure of scientific evidence. The issues that have arisen in this context include late disclosure, omitting information from laboratory reports, declining to have a report prepared, …
When Science Is Too Daunting: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Federal Courts, And The Struggling Spirit Of Daubert, Carl H. Johnson
When Science Is Too Daunting: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Federal Courts, And The Struggling Spirit Of Daubert, Carl H. Johnson
Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )
No abstract provided.
Insurance-Weight Of Evidence-Construction Of Policy-Proximate Cause
Insurance-Weight Of Evidence-Construction Of Policy-Proximate Cause
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Here Today, Gone Tomorrow - Three Common Mistakes Courts Make When Police Lose Or Destroy Evidence With Apparent Exculpatory, Elizabeth A. Bawden
Here Today, Gone Tomorrow - Three Common Mistakes Courts Make When Police Lose Or Destroy Evidence With Apparent Exculpatory, Elizabeth A. Bawden
Cleveland State Law Review
Part I of this Article examines the first question, what does it mean for evidence to have "apparent exculpatory value?" Part II of this Article answers the second question, when does Youngblood's bad faith requirement apply in failure to preserve evidence cases? Part III then seeks to determine the substance of Youngblood's bad faith requirement and identify the best approach to defining it. Ultimately, this Article argues that there are three common mistakes that courts make when applying Trombetta and Youngblood.
Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White
Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Advances in science have made it possible to discover new evidence. This newly discovered evidence is not always admissible as evidence. This essay suggests methods by which appellate courts may approach a balance between the rigid application of limitation periods in serious criminal cases and admitting evidence that proves innocence.
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
This article attempts to define the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. The article begins by distinguishing the three types of appellate review. It then focuses on review of discretion. Articles written by Professors Maurice Rosenburg, Robert C. Post, and Judge Henery J. Friendly are next analyzed in order to further evaluate judicial discretionary decisionmaking. Caselaw is next used to discuss how courts have attempted to define and apply the abuse of discretion standard. Primary cases considered include Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Pierce v. Underwood, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., and Koon v. United States. Finally, …
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Heuristics Of Intellectual Due Process: A Primer For Triers Of Science, Erica Beecher-Monas
The Heuristics Of Intellectual Due Process: A Primer For Triers Of Science, Erica Beecher-Monas
Law Faculty Research Publications
Scientific evidence is an inescapable facet of modern litigation. The Supreme Court; beginning with the seminal case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and continuing with General Electric Co. v. Joiner and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, has instructed federal judges to evaluate the scientific validity of such evidence in determining the evidence's adinissibiliV. In this Article, Professor Erica Beecher-Monas argues that many judges ignore the science component of their "gatekeeping" duties, focusing instead on rules of convenience that have little scientific justification. As a result, size demonstrates that judges reject even scientifically uncontroversial evidence that would have litttlroeu …
How Good Is Good Enough?: Expert Evidence Under Daubert And Kuhmo, David H. Kaye, David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders
How Good Is Good Enough?: Expert Evidence Under Daubert And Kuhmo, David H. Kaye, David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders
Faculty Scholarship
This essay is a response to Professor Edward Imwinkelried's article, "Should the Courts Incorporate a Best Evidence Rule into the Standard Determining the Admissibility of Scientific Testimony?: Enough is Enough When it is not the Best." The authors have two basic points. First, the authors wish to make it clear that they never proposed the "best evidence rule" that he so vigorously attacks, and they think his suggestion that they did so is strained. Second, they wish to reiterate that courts sometimes should do more than they have to ensure that expert testimony is reasonably sound. The important debate underway …
Dna As Evidence: Viewing Science Through The Prism Of The Law, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman
Dna As Evidence: Viewing Science Through The Prism Of The Law, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this article, we analyze a problem related to DNA evidence that is likely to be of great and increasing significance in the near future. This is the problem of whether, and how, to present evidence that the suspect has been identified through a DNA database search. In our view, the two well-known reports on DNA evidence issued by the National Research Council (NRC) have been badly mistaken in their analysis of this problem. The mistakes are significant because the reports have carried great authority with American courts; moreover, the DNA Advisory Board of the FBI has endorsed the second …
Balancing Hearsay And Criminal Discovery, John G. Douglass
Balancing Hearsay And Criminal Discovery, John G. Douglass
Law Faculty Publications
and prosecutors. Part I of this Article argues that the conventional theory of hearsaydiscovery balance does not reflect the reality of modem federal practice. An imbalance has arisen because, in the last quarter century, developments in the law of evidence and confrontation are at odds with developments-or one might say nondevelopments-in the law of criminal discovery. Since enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, both the law of evidence and modem Confrontation Clause doctrine have evolved toward broader admission of hearsay in criminal cases. Contrary to conventional theory, that evolution has at least matched-and probably has outpaced-the trend …
Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Modifying The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence—A Separation Of Powers Issue, Robert G. Lawson
Modifying The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence—A Separation Of Powers Issue, Robert G. Lawson
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
How do you modify laws that simultaneously exist as statutes and rules of court? For reasons that are described elsewhere and need not be repeated here, the Kentucky Rules of Evidence (K.R.E.) came into existence through concurrent enactment by the General Assembly and Kentucky Supreme Court and thus are endowed with all the attributes of both statutes and rules of court. So, how do you change them when the inevitable need to do so arises, a question made both interesting and difficult by the fact that there is no institutional mechanism for concurrent lawmaking by the General Assembly and supreme …
Allocating Discovery Costs In The Computer Age: Deciding Who Should Bear The Costs Of Discovery Of Electronically Stored Data, Corinne L. Giacobbe
Allocating Discovery Costs In The Computer Age: Deciding Who Should Bear The Costs Of Discovery Of Electronically Stored Data, Corinne L. Giacobbe
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
Expert Qualifications: Traps For The Unwary, Paul C. Giannelli
Expert Qualifications: Traps For The Unwary, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
When Is A Cd Factory Not Like A Dance Hall?: The Difficulty Of Establishing Third-Party Liability For Infringing Digital Music Samples, Rebecca Morris
When Is A Cd Factory Not Like A Dance Hall?: The Difficulty Of Establishing Third-Party Liability For Infringing Digital Music Samples, Rebecca Morris
Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Fishing For The Smoking Gun, Y. Daphne Coelho-Adam
Fishing For The Smoking Gun, Y. Daphne Coelho-Adam
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
Industry-wide tort litigation, such as tobacco and gun litigation, poses a new problem for extraterritorial discovery. These suits allege conspiracies on the part of the tobacco and gun industries to conceal the dangers of their products from the public. Much of the evidence needed to prove the industries' knowledge is in their possession. These industries are international with companies located in the United Kingdom. Under U.S. discovery law the evidence is discoverable, but such is not the case under British discovery law. Therefore, the evidence and witnesses located in the United Kingdom are outside the grasp of U.S. plaintiffs. The …
The Limits Of Privilege: The Developing Scope Of Federal Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege Law, Melissa Lee Nelken
The Limits Of Privilege: The Developing Scope Of Federal Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege Law, Melissa Lee Nelken
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
How Good Is Good Enough? Expert Evidence Under Daubert And Kumho, David L. Faigman, David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders
How Good Is Good Enough? Expert Evidence Under Daubert And Kumho, David L. Faigman, David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Modifying The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence--A Separation Of Powers Issue, Robert G. Lawson
Modifying The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence--A Separation Of Powers Issue, Robert G. Lawson
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Keeping The Reformist Spirit Alive In Evidence Law Tribute, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Keeping The Reformist Spirit Alive In Evidence Law Tribute, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Costs Of Confidentiality And The Purpose Of Privilege, Melanie B. Leslie
The Costs Of Confidentiality And The Purpose Of Privilege, Melanie B. Leslie
Articles
No abstract provided.
Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman
Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In 1662, in The Case of Thomas Tong and Others, which involved charges of treason against several defendants, the judges of the King's Bench conferred on a crucial set of points of procedure. As reported by one of the judges, Sir John Kelyng, the judges agreed unanimously that a pretrial confession made to the authorities was evidence against the Party himself who made the Confession, and indeed, if adequately proved could support a conviction of that party without additional witnesses to the treason itself. But -- again unanimously, and quite definitively -- the judges also agreed that the confession cannot …