Evidence Commons^™

The Negative Effects Of Expert Testimony On The Battered Women's Syndrome, Pamela Posch

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Thoughts From Across The Water On Hearsay And Confrontation, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

This article draws on the history of the hearsay rule, and on recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, to argue that the right to confrontation should be recognised as a basic principle of the law of evidence, and that aspects of the Law Commission's proposals for reform of the hearsay rule, and of the Home Office's proposals for restrictions on the right of cross-examination, are therefore unsatisfactory.

Built On Lies: Preliminary Reflections On Evidence Law As An Autopoetic System, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

This Symposium on Truth and Its Rivals seems most concerned with what one might think of as the "output" side of evidence law that is, whether the rules of evidence enhance the likelihood that trial verdicts will capture the true state of the matter giving rise to the litigation. From this perspective, the legitimate rivals to truth are values that may justify decisions that eclipse the truth. The most obvious examples are rules of privilege, which allow probative information to remain concealed even where it is essential to accurate fact finding.

Conflicts Of Interest In Scientific Expert Testimony, Mark R. Patterson

Faculty Scholarship

Conflicts of interest have significant implications for the reliability of scientific expert testimony. However, the courts' treatment of conflicts is not always in accord either with the treatment of conflicts in scientific practice or with the particular problems that scientists' conflicts present in court. In response, this Article proposes two basic changes in the treatment of scientific expert testimony. First, courts should strive to separate issues of bias from issues of scientific validity-the two sets of issues are now conflated at times. Second, courts should pay more attention to biases of scientists who perform the research underlying expert testimony, whereas …

Make-Believe: The Rules Excluding Evidence Of Character And Liability Insurance (Symposium: Truth And Its Rivals: Evidence Reform And The Goals Of Evidence Law), Samuel R. Gross

Articles

Article IV of the Federal Rules of Evidence includes several rules that prohibit the use of specified types of information as evidence of particular propositions. Subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence (but admissible to show ownership, control, et cetera),' settlement offers are inadmissible to prove liability (but admissible to show bias or prejudice, or for other purposes),2 and so forth. Any exclusion of relevant evidence involves some distortion of reality in the sense that the picture presented to the trier of fact includes less information than the available total. That will be true whether the evidence is kept …

Offensive And Defensive Insurance Coverage For Patent Infringement Litigation: Who Will Pay?, Lisa A. Small

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Federal Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege After Jaffee: Truth And Other Values In A Therapeutic Age, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Truth And Its Rivals In The Law Of Hearsay And Confrontation (Symposium: Truth And Its Rivals: Evidence Reform And The Goals Of Evidence Law)." , Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this paper, I will look at the problem of hearsay and confrontation through the lens offered by this symposium's theme of "truth and its rivals." I will ask: To what extent does the law of hearsay and confrontation aspire to achieve the goal of truth in litigation? To what extent does it, or should it, seek to achieve other goals, or to satisfy other constraints on the litigation system? And, given the ends that it seeks to achieve, what should the shape of the law in this area be? My principal conclusions are as follows: In most settings, the …

Focus On Faculty, Richard D. Friedman

Other Publications

Professor Richard Friedman talks about his scholarship and work.

Confrontation: The Search For Basic Principles, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused in a criminal prosecution the right "to be confronted with the Witnesses against him."' The Confrontation Clause clearly applies to those witnesses who testify against the accused at trial. Moreover, it is clear enough that confrontation ordinarily includes the accused's right to have those witnesses brought "face-toface," in the time-honored phrase, when they testify.2 But confrontation is much more than this "face-to-face" right. It also comprehends the right to have witnesses give their testimony under oath and to subject them to crossexamination. 3 Indeed, the Supreme Court has treated the accused's …

Tadić, The Anonymous Witness And The Sources Of International Procedural Law, Natasha Affolder

All Faculty Publications

On May 7, 1997, Trial Chamber II of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia released its verdict in its first trial. While the proceedings of the International Tribunal were commended for their fairness, criticism quickly erupted as a result of the Trial Chamber's decision to allow anonymous testimony to be used in the Tadic trial. This article explores the Trial Chamber's decision to allow the use of anonymous testimony as a protective measure. It focuses on the challenge of defining the sources …

No Bad Men!: A Feminist Analysis Of Character Evidence In Rape Trials, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Law In The Backwaters: A Comment Of Mirjan Damaška's Evidence Law Adrift, Samuel R. Gross

Reviews

The most problematic part of Professor Mirjan Damaška's fine book is the title.' Professor Damaška does an excellent job of situating American evidence law in the procedural context in which American trials occur. He identifies three major procedural elements. First, juries are traditionally cited as the primary or sole explanation for our extensive set of exclusionary rules, which are said to express mistrust of lay adjudicators. Professor Damaška points out as well that lay juries permit a divided court, with a professional judge who has exclusive control over "questions of law," and that this division is necessary for the operation …

Anchors And Flotsam: Is Evidence Law 'Adrift'?, Richard D. Friedman

Reviews

Difference, as well as distance, yields perspective. A comparison of legal systems may search for common underlying principles, or for lessons that one system might learn from another. But it may also be aimed primarily at illuminating one system by light shed from another. This is the aim of Evidence Law Adrift, Mirjan Damagka's elegant study of the common law system of evidence, and he is ideally suited for the task. Born and schooled in Continental Europe, he has lived and taught in the United States for twenty-five years. His relation to the common law system of evidence is, I …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The survey period saw a number of cases raising significant evidentiary issues but no startling developments. Two areas in particular should be noted. As suggested in last year's survey, lawyers engaged in civil litigation should continue to be aware of decisions addressing the admissibility of collateral source payments and the remedies available when a party improperly injects the issue of collateral source payments. All trial lawyers, especially those engaged in criminal practice, should take note of the continued evolution of the "necessity" exception to the hearsay rule.

Perhaps the most striking development came not from the appellate courts but rather …

"My God!" Is This How A Feminist Analyzes Excited Utterances, Randolph N. Jonakait

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Evidence In A Difference Voice: Some Thoughts On Professor Jonakait's Critique Of A Feminist Approach, Aviva Orenstein

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Of Flutes, Oboes And The As If World Of Evidence Law, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

Reading Allen's article, I am reminded of a cold war parable I heard during the 1960s. It concerned a flute and an oboe who joined an orchestra one year and immediately set to quarrelling. The flute was distressed because whenever it was playing at its lyrical best the oboe would enter. drowning it out. The oboe was affronted because its deepest, most sonorous passages were invariably ruined by the high-pitched flute butting in. When the orchestra split up for the summer and these quarrelsome instruments went their separate ways, the flute, as it angrily contemplated the oboe, found itself stretching …

Preface, Norman L. Greene

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

1997 Oregon Evidence, Oregon Law Institute, Anna J. Brown, William A. Gaylord, Scott Meyer, Judy D. Snyder, Thomas H. Tongue, Kent C. Whitaker

Oregon Law Institute, 1997

Course materials from the November 21, 1997 program in Portland

On The Admissibility Of Expert Testimony In Kansas, Mark D. Hinderks, Steve Leben

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

The Epistemology Of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy Of Science Would Not Make For Good Philosophy Of Evidence, Brian Leiter

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Witnesses Under Rules 703 And 803(4) Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Separating The Wheat From The Chaff, L. Timothy Perrin

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Beating The Prisoner At Prisoner's Dilemma: The Evidentiary Value Of A Witness's Refusal To Testify , Russell Dean Covey

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Went Wrong With Fre Rule 609: A Look At How Jurors Really Misuse Prior Conviction Evidence, Robert D. Dodson

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mental Health Experts On Trial: Free Will And Determinism In The Courtroom, Ronald J. Rychlak, Joseph F. Rychlak

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Flexibility In Determining The Role Of The Board Of Directors In The Age Of Information, James P. Holdcroft Jr., Jonathan R. Macey

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Limits Of Cross-Examination, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this article, the author compiles the history and methodology of cross-examination from ancient Greece to the modern era. The reality and ethics of cross-examination are explored through anecdotes and detailed histories.

Allocating The Burden Of Proof, Bruce L. Hay

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Three Contributions To Three Important Problems In Evidence Scholarship, Peter Tillers

Cardozo Law Review

This issue of the Cardozo Law Review is graced with original contributions about three fundamental problems in evidence scholarship and the law of evidence. First, in an exchange of views about legal remedies for the wrongful infliction of "evidential damage," Professors Ariel Porat and Alex Stein, on the one hand, and Professor Richard Friedman, on the other, touch on some of the difficulties that are associated with the nearly oxymoronic task of measuring the harm done by the destruction or loss of unknown evidence. Second, in an article about the relationship between estimation of drug quantities and burdens of proof, …