Litigation Commons^™

Expert Qualifications: Traps For The Unwary, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Impeachment: Evidence Amendments, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Expert Proofs In Complex Product Liability Litigation In New York: A Preliminary Consideration Of Varying Federal And New York State Approaches To Disclosure And Admissibility, Steven J. Phillips

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Courts' Evolving Roles In Daubert Decisions, Susan J. Becker

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In Daubert, the Supreme Court interpreted Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to permit an arguably more-relaxed standard for the admission of expert scientific evidence than previously allowed under the popular Frye test.

Hearsay: Traps & Problem Issues, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The After-Acquired Evidence Rule: The Best Of All Possible Worlds?, Sharona Hoffman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

"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.

"Show And Tell": An Analysis Of The Scope Of The Attorney-Client Waiver Standards, Roberta M. Harding

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

As today's society becomes increasingly litigious, document productions, a major discovery tool, are growing larger. One inevitable consequence of this phenomenon is the increased risk that communications protected by the attorney-client privilege may be inadvertently disclosed. Privileged communications may also be disclosed to an adversary under more questionable circumstances: specifically, the intentional, strategic disclosure of privileged information favorable to the disclosing party's position.

In any case involving the disclosure of privileged information, the court must initially decide whether the privilege is waived. To resolve this threshold issue courts apply one of the three waiver tests. If a court decides that …

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

Faculty Publications

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.

Polygraph Evidence: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Proper Role Of After-Acquired Evidence In Employment Discrimination Litigation, Rebecca White, Robert D. Brussack

Scholarly Works

A new defense to employment discrimination claims has gained acceptance in the lower courts. Employers who allegedly have discriminated against their employees because of race, sex or age are winning judgments on the basis of after-acquired evidence of employee misconduct. The evidence is “after-acquired” in the sense that the misconduct was unknown to the employer at the time the alleged discrimination occurred but was acquired later, often through the use of discovery devices in the employee's discrimination action. Lower courts have accepted the proposition that if the employer would have discharged the plaintiff on the basis of the after-acquired evidence, …

“Junk Science”: The Criminal Cases, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Rape Trauma Syndrome & Child Sexual Abuse Syndrome, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

In Support Of Huber, Jon F. Merz

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

The author takes exception to two recent reviews of GALILEO'S REVENGE.

Experts As Hearsay Conduits: Confrontation Abuses In Opinion Testimony, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

The dispute over whether litigants may use experts to run unexamined hearsay into the trial record is a microcosm of a larger debate. The larger question is whether judicial review of expert testimony should be passive, or whether the expert witness process should be marked by active judicial policing. Does the plethora of expert opinions presently being offered in modern trials merit special scrutiny by the courts?

Some scholars urge that courts must accommodate experts. Proponents of this view favor few challenges to the unrestricted rendition of opinions by an expert, whether the expert is real or self-proclaimed. Under this …

"Other Acts” & Character Evidence: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

"Other Acts” & Character Evidence: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Scientific Evidence In Criminal Prosecutions, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Making The Law Of Factual Determinations Matter More, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Authentication, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Rules Of Evidence Amendments, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Dna Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Best Evidence Rule, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part Iv, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part Iii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.