Evidence Commons^™

Conflict Resolution In The Courts: The Role Of Science, Anthony Z. Roisman

Cardozo Law Review

This Article is a philosophical examination of an issue that now engages many lawyers and scientists-the proper role of science in courtroom litigation. More specifically, the issue is this: In cases where expert testimony is useful to lay jurors in resolving factual issues, what is the proper role of a judge in restricting what sorts of experts can testify and what they can say?

Assuming Facts Not In Evidence: A Response To Russell M. Coombs, Reforming New Jersey Evidence Law On Fresh Complaint Of Rape, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Dna Evidence In Washington After State V. Cauthron, Elizabeth A. Allen

Washington Law Review

In State v. Cauthron, the Washington Supreme Court issued its first opinion concerning forensic DNA evidence. The court clearly held that the principles underlying DNA evidence and the restricted fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) method of DNA typing are generally accepted in the scientific community and are therefore admissible under the Frye test. The court refused to find that the trial court had properly admitted DNA evidence, however, because testimony that the suspect's DNA "matched" the perpetrator's was not supported by probability statistics. This Note demonstrates that the court was unclear in its discussion of when probability statistics meet the Frye …

Impeachment By Conviction Evidence: Judicial Discretion And The Politics Of Rule 609, Victor Gold

Cardozo Law Review

No provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence has sparked more controversy than Rule 609, which deals with the admissibility of convictions to impeach a witness. When first proposed, the provision was the subject of fierce debate, sparking repeated revision during its drafting and while it was under consideration by Congress. Ultimately, no one side in this legislative battle prevailed entirely; the Rule strikes a compromise between sharply conflicting policies. The text of Rule 609, incorporating no less than three balancing tests, two references to fairness, one to justice, and several other undefined terms, leaves the task of resolving the …

After Daubert: Going Forward With Lessons From The Past, Marc S. Klein

Cardozo Law Review

Ground zero in the ongoing battle over scientific evidence in toxic tort cases has clearly shifted in light of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In that case, the Supreme Court settled at least two profound issues. One has immediate practical consequences, the other has important philosophical implications.

The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence After Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., David E. Bernstein

Cardozo Law Review

This past June, the Supreme Court decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the most important case involving the admissibility of scientific evidence in seventy years. While some analysts have argued that Daubert will encourage the trend toward more careful judicial scrutiny of scientific evidence, others have contended that the opinion will reduce the role of the courts in screening scientific evidence and permit a flood of junk science evidence into American courtrooms. The early evidence strongly suggests that the former view is correct. So far, most federal courts are interpreting Daubert as giving them wide authority to restrict …

Stretching The "Terry" Doctrine To The Search For Evidence Of Crime: Canine Sniffs, State Constitutions, And The Reasonable Suspicion Standard, Kenneth L. Pollack

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Fourth Amendment, protects an individual's interest in freedom from unreasonable government intrusions into personal privacy. When a court finds an investigative technique to be a search within the Amendment's meaning, it effectively concludes that Fourth Amendment protection should apply. If the government activity constitutes a search, that activity must be reasonable. If the activity does not amount to a search, however, the government enjoys virtual freedom to conduct that activity as unreasonably as it pleases. For pure investigatory searches, the United States Supreme Court has found that the probable cause requirement strikes the proper balance in defining reasonableness. Unlike …

Table Of Contents - Cardozo Law Review, Volume 15, Issues 6-7

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Taking Daubert’S “Focus” Seriously: The Methodology/Conclusion Distinction, Kenneth J. Chesebro

Cardozo Law Review

Last June's United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., rejected the Frye "general acceptance" test for scientific evidence, and went on to make "some general observations" about proper admissibility analysis under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Daubert was the Court's first decision squarely addressing the expert testimony provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and United States Law Week called Daubert "probably the most important procedural case of the term."

On The Relevance Of The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: Tort System Outcomes Are Principally Determined By Lawyers’ Rates Of Return, Lester Brickman

Cardozo Law Review

The attention generated by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reflects the perceived importance of the issue of the admissibility of scientific evidence in tort litigation. In products liability litigation, whether claimants prevail often depends upon expert testimony presented on the issue of causation. Unless a claimant is able to have the expert's testimony admitted, there will be little or no chance of prevailing. Thus, though it is disputed whether Daubert will extend or contract tort liability, it is undisputed that its importance lies in its impact on the scope of tort liability.

Dna And Daubert, Barry C. Scheck

Cardozo Law Review

The most intriguing aspect of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is that the Supreme Court never applied its new analytic framework for the admissibility of scientific evidence to the facts of the case. Either the deviltry, or the genius, of the Daubert decision lies in the details.

Mihas V. United States, Jennifer Fox

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Maryland's First Evidence Code, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This outline from a talk given by Professor McLain outlines the history of the rules of evidence Maryland has used and provides a quick summary of the then-new Title 5, the Maryland Rules of Evidence.

Using Impartial Experts In Valuations: A Forum-Specific Approach, Andrew Macgregor Smith

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are You My Mother? The Scientific And Legal Validity Of Conventional Blood Testing And Dna Fingerprinting To Establish Proof Of Parentage In Immigration Cases, Alan R. Davis

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doctor Duxbury’S Cure: Or, A Note On Legal Historiography, Peter Goodrich

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dna Fingerprinting: The Virginia Approach, James P. O'Brien Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Indiana Rules Of Evidence, Ivan E. Bodensteiner

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Junk Science, Daubert, And Ohio Rule 702, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Do We Really Want To Know The Defendant?, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

Forward to the Symposium on the Admission of Prior Offense Evidence in Sexual Assualt Cases, Chicago, Illinois, 1994.

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employees' Admissions In New York: Time For A Change, David J. Wallman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Admission Of Hearsay Evidence Where Defedant Misconduct Causes The Unavailability Of A Prosecution Witness, Paul T. Markland

American University 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.

Expert Testimony Regarding The Speed Of A Vehicle: The Status Of North Carolina Law And The State Of The Art, Lawrence F. Mazer, Charles R. Manning, Richard T. Edwards, Michael A. Sutton

Campbell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Probability Evidence In Mail Fraud Cases, Phillip M. Kannan

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

"Other Crimes" Evidence In Sex Offense Cases, Roger C. Park, David P. Bryden

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Confrontation Issues In Child Abuse Cases, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Polygraph Evidence: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.