Evidence Commons^™

Shifting The Male Gaze Of Evidence, Teneille R. Brown

Vanderbilt Law Review

Rationality is deeply embedded in both the Rules themselves and the ways they are interpreted. David Leonard stated that rationality "lies at the heart of modern evidentiary principles" because relevance itself is "grounded in rationality." Of the many reasons we have evidence rules-to streamline trials, foster legitimacy and predictability, and promote due process-encouraging "rational fact- finding" is often at the top of this list.

In contemporary evidence law the hegemonic goal-of-rationality is "often taken for granted" and can be traced "from Bentham through Wigmore to the present day." It is a "remarkably homogeneous" view that has "dominated legal scholarship for …

Models And Limits Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 609 Reform, Anna Roberts

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Symposium: Reimagining The Rules Of Evidence At 50, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Prior to the eighteenth century, cartographers would often fill uncharted areas of maps with sea monsters, other artwork, or even rank speculation—a phenomenon labeled “horror vacui,” or fear of empty spaces. For example, in Paolo Forlani’s world map of 1565, a yet to-be-discovered southern continent was depicted with anticipated mountain chains and animals. The possible explanations for horror vacui are varied, but one reason may have been a desire “to hide [the mapmakers’] ignorance.” Not until “maps began to be thought of as more purely scientific instruments . . . [did] cartographers . . . restrain their concern about spaces …

The Superfluous Rules Of Evidence, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

There are few American legal codifications as successful as the Federal Rules of Evidence. But this success masks the project’s uncertain beginnings. The drafters of the Federal Rules worried that lawmakers would not adopt the new rules and that judges would not follow them. As a result, they included at least thirty rules of evidence that do not, in fact, alter the admissibility of evidence. Instead, these rules: (1) market the rules project, and (2) guide judges away from anticipated errors in applying the (other) nonsuperfluous rules.

Given the superfluous rules’ covert mission, it should not be surprising that the …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Bending The Rules Of Evidence, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn, Julia Simon-Kerr

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The evidence rules have well-established, standard textual meanings—meanings that evidence professors teach their law students every year. Yet, despite the rules’ clarity, courts misapply them across a wide array of cases: Judges allow past acts to bypass the propensity prohibition, squeeze hearsay into facially inapplicable exceptions, and poke holes in supposedly ironclad privileges. And that’s just the beginning.

The evidence literature sees these misapplications as mistakes by inept trial judges. This Article takes a very different view. These “mistakes” are often not mistakes at all, but rather instances in which courts are intentionally bending the rules of evidence. Codified evidentiary …

Bending The Rules Of Evidence, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn, Julia Simon-Kerr

Northwestern University Law Review

The evidence rules have well-established, standard textual meanings—meanings that evidence professors teach their law students every year. Yet, despite the rules’ clarity, courts misapply them across a wide array of cases: Judges allow past acts to bypass the propensity prohibition, squeeze hearsay into facially inapplicable exceptions, and poke holes in supposedly ironclad privileges. And that’s just the beginning.

The evidence literature sees these misapplications as mistakes by inept trial judges. This Article takes a very different view. These “mistakes” are often not mistakes at all, but rather instances in which courts are intentionally bending the rules of evidence. Codified evidentiary …

Twenty Years After Krieger V Law Society Of Alberta: Law Society Discipline Of Crown Prosecutors And Government Lawyers, Andrew Flavelle Martin

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta held that provincial and territorial law societies have disciplinary jurisdiction over Crown prosecutors for conduct outside of prosecutorial discretion. The reasoning in Krieger would also apply to government lawyers. The apparent consensus is that law societies rarely exercise that jurisdiction. But in those rare instances, what conduct do Canadian law societies discipline Crown prosecutors and government lawyers for? In this article, I canvass reported disciplinary decisions to demonstrate that, while law societies sometimes discipline Crown prosecutors for violations unique to those lawyers, they often do so for violations applicable to all lawyers — particularly …

Alternative Evidence Rules For Arbitration, Henry Zhuhao Wang

Scholarly Publications

Today, arbitration is broadly used for resolving civil disputes domestically and internationally. It is a subject so popular in practice that calling it an “alternative dispute resolution” may in fact be a misnomer. Regarding the taking of evidence in arbitration, the cliché is that no rules apply, and that arbitrators have the ultimate authority. In practice, too many arbitrators simply let everything in, no matter how prejudicial, cumulative, incredible, suspect, or otherwise useless, for fear that ruling out anything may lead to vacatur.
This article probes into the importance and feasibility of having evidence rules in arbitration. It argues that …

The Death Knell And The Wild West: Two Dangers Of Domestic Discovery In Foreign Adjudications, Shay M. Collins

Michigan Law Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), parties to foreign legal proceedings can obtain discovery orders from United States federal courts. In other words, if a foreign party needs physical evidence located in—or testimony from a person residing in—the United States to support their claim or defense, they can ask a district court to order the production of that evidence. For almost two decades, § 1782(a) practice has operated as a procedural Wild West. Judges routinely consider § 1782(a) applications ex parte—that is, without giving the parties subject to the resulting discovery orders a chance to oppose them—and grant those applications at …

Bending The Rules Of Evidence, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn, Julia Simon-Kerr

Faculty Scholarship

The evidence rules have well-established, standard textual meanings—meanings that evidence professors teach their law students every year. Yet, despite the rules’ clarity, courts misapply them across a wide array of cases: Judges allow past acts to bypass the propensity prohibition, squeeze hearsay into facially inapplicable exceptions, and poke holes in supposedly ironclad privileges. And that’s just the beginning.

The evidence literature sees these misapplications as mistakes by inept trial judges. This Article takes a very different view. These “mistakes” are often not mistakes at all, but rather instances in which courts are intentionally bending the rules of evidence. Codified evidentiary …

The Federal Rules Of Emojis: A Proposed Framework For Handling Emoji Evidence In Trial Contexts, Marilyn Hurzeler

Fordham Law Review

Emojis are 3,633 ubiquitous symbols-as-communication used by 92 percent of internet users. These tiny yet influential pieces of evidence hold the power to complete, enhance, mitigate, and flip the meaning of surrounding text. Consequently, court references to emojis have grown exponentially in the last five years. As emojis have become a cornerstone of digital discourse, courts have increasingly encountered the significant impact of emojis on parties’ legal claims. A guide for handling of emoji evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), therefore, is important to afford proper treatment to this relatively new evidentiary form.

This Note discusses how the …

Holistic Claim Construction, Lidiya Mishchenko

Cardozo Law Review

Jurisprudence in the area of defining patent scope is opaque and inconsistent. District courts and litigants cannot be certain of the bounds of the exclusive territory covered by a patent—defined by the patent’s claims—until the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—the single patent appellate court in the nation—says what it is in an appeal after final judgement. The appellate court appears to simply redo the analysis of the district courts, yet often inexplicably reaches a different conclusion based on the patent’s text. Though much has been written about the Federal Circuit’s unpredictable, textualist approach to claim construction, no scholarship …

When Innocence Is Not Enough: A Conversation With Tom Dybdahl, Author Of “When Innocence Is Not Enough: Hidden Evidence And The Failed Promise Of The Brady Rule”, Cardozo Criminal Defense Clinic

2023–2024 Flyers

No abstract provided.

A Conversation With Tom Dybdahl, Author Of “When Innocence Is Not Enough: Hidden Evidence And The Failed Promise Of The Brady Rule”, Cardozo Criminal Defense Clinic

2023 Event Invitations

The Supreme Court’s Brady rule of 1963 requires prosecutors to share favorable evidence with defendants. Dybdahl’s book reveals how a series of legal decisions have made it ineffective. Hear what’s at stake when prosecutors conceal evidence, and what can be done about it.

Forensic Evidence And Rule 3.8: What Does The Use Of Bite Mark Evidence Tell Us About Prosecutorial Ethics?, Brendan Clemente

Duke Law & Technology Review

Rule 3.8 of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct should include rules that specifically address unethical uses of forensic evidence in criminal prosecutions. Forensic evidence is common in criminal trials. But the traditional rules of ethics do not effectively address the use of forensic evidence. Rule 3.8 should include a rule requiring prompt and full disclosure of information about expert witnesses whom the prosecutor plans to call and all relevant information that the prosecutor knows about a forensic method’s application in the case. Rule 3.8 should also include a requirement that the prosecutor use reasonable diligence to learn about …

Unreliable Forensic Science, Sarah Ciuffetelli

Quest

The Effectiveness of Forensic Science

Research in progress for CRIJ 1301: Introduction to Criminal Justice

Faculty Mentor: Stefanie LeMaire

Sarah Ciuffetelli uses critical thinking to examine the effectiveness of forensic sciences during criminal investigations. The assignment requires students to find the most prominent scholarly research in forensic sciences and discuss its efficacy. Further, the research leads students to discuss the potential limitations investigators must consider when examining forensic evidence. Lastly, students find at least six scholarly sources to provide an in-depth analysis of the research.

Sarah begins by discussing the history of forensic science and the ever-increasing technology used in …

Alternative Evidence Rules For Arbitration, Henry Zhuhao Wang

Nevada Law Journal

Today, arbitration is broadly used for resolving civil disputes domestically and internationally. It is a subject so popular in practice that calling it an “alternative dispute resolution” may in fact be a misnomer. Regarding the taking of evidence in arbitration, the cliché is that no rules apply, and that arbitrators have the ultimate authority. In practice, too many arbitrators simply let everything in, no matter how prejudicial, cumulative, incredible, suspect, or otherwise useless, for fear that ruling out anything may lead to vacatur.

This Article probes into the importance and feasibility of having evidence rules in arbitration. It argues that …

The History Of Forensic-Science Evidence In Criminal Trials And The Role Of Early “Success” In Establishing Its Putative Reliability, Carrie Leonetti

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Article posits the history of forensic-science evidence plays a significant role in the unquestioning manner of its modern acceptance. It traces early high-profile forensic science “successes” and the public reactions to them. It argues the public perception of the “advances” of forensic science continues to play a role in the lack of scrutiny given to these disciplines in admissibility decisions today. It concludes, when it comes to forensic science, history should play a different role by serving as a critical warning rather than a congratulatory buttress.

Revealing Realities Hidden Behind The Curtain Of Subjective Syndromes: The Seventh Circuit Changes The Narrative Around Expert Evidence On Battered Woman Syndrome In United States V. Dingwall, Keane Brazda

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.