Evidence Commons^™

Lost In Translation? The Difference Between Hearsay Rule's Historical Rationale And Practical Application, Christopher Lloyd Sewrattan

LLM Theses

An examination of the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and current application. The analysis occurs in three steps. In section 1, the historical rationale of the hearsay rule is identified through a reconciliation of competing theories. Section 2 analyses the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and the application of the exclusionary hearsay rule. Section 3 analyses the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and the application of some categorical hearsay exceptions.

Overall, the thesis finds that the hearsay rules historical rationale has three aspects: concern with the inherent reliability of hearsay evidence, concern with procedural …

Brief Of Evidence Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner Paul L. Behrens’ Petition For Rehearing And Rehearing En Banc, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The panel here held that the government’s expert in a criminal trial can present hearsay for its truth without satisfying the requirements of Rule 703 or the prerequisites to admissibility under any hearsay exception. Amici believe that misreads the Federal Rules of Evidence, undermines the general prohibition on hearsay, and circumvents defendants’ cross-examination rights.

Diversifying To Mitigate Risk: Can Dodd–Frank Section 342 Help Stabilize The Financial Sector?, Kristin Johnson, Steven A. Ramirez, Cary Martin Shelby

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Kuckes On Grand Jury Secrecy 8/30/2016, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Electronic Discovery In Civil Litigation: Avoiding Surprises In Cost Shifting Decisions, Genevieve H. Harte

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Disruptions' Function: A Defense Of (Some) Form Objections Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Amir Shachmurove

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Good Reason For Secrecy On 38 Studios 8/12/2016, Niki Kuckes, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Neither Strict Nor Nuanced: The Balanced Standard For False Claims Act Pleading In The Eleventh Circuit, C. Caitlin Giles

University of Miami Law Review

False Claims Act litigation is more hotly contested than ever before. One such controversial issue plaguing federal courts is the proper application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) to actions arising under the False Claims Act. The explosion of litigation under the FCA caused a circuit split to emerge on the correct standard to use when applying Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement for more particularity. Specifically, courts are split on the level of specificity required to prove that a false claim was submitted to the government. Some apply a “strict” interpretation and require pleadings to include representative samples of …

Teaching The Quandary Of Statistical Jurisprudence: A Review-Essay On Math On Trial By Schneps And Colmez, Noah Giansiracusa

Journal of Humanistic Mathematics

This review-essay on the mother-and-daughter collaboration Math on Trial stems from my recent experience using this book as the basis for a college freshman seminar on the interactions between math and law. I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this book as an accessible introduction to this enigmatic yet deeply important topic. For those considering teaching from this text (a highly recommended endeavor) I offer some curricular suggestions.

Keynote Remarks: Academic Activism And Freedom Of Speech, Gene Nichol

Seattle University Law Review

I am much honored to be here, in such remarkable company. By my lights, the folks in this room represent the best of the legal academy; those who think, stunningly, that the real world, outside campus walls, actually matters; those who, every day, live out Václav Havel’s definition of hope. Havel thought of hope not as a prediction of success or a description of the world around us but as a conscious choice to live in the belief that we can make a difference in the quality of our shared, and sometimes threatened, lives. When you think about it, the …

“Please Stop Telling Her To Leave.” Where Is The Money: Reclaiming Economic Power To Address Domestic Violence, Margo Lindauer

Seattle University Law Review

In this Article, I argue that economic dependence is a critical factor in violence prevention. For many victims of domestic violence, the economic entanglement with an abusive partner is too strong to sever contact without another source of economic support. This Article is a thought experiment in economic justice; it asks the question: is there a way to provide outside economic support for a victim of violence fleeing a battering partner? In this Article, I examine existing systems such as Social Security, unemployment assistance, work-readiness programs, crowd sourcing, and others to evaluate how these sources could provide emergency economic support …

Neuroimaging Evidence: A Solution To The Problem Of Proving Pain And Suffering?, Brady Somers

Seattle University Law Review

Envision a plaintiff who was injured on the job at a construction site due to his employer’s negligence. The plaintiff has chronic back pain, but it is not verifiable on an X-ray, nor is a physical injury readily discernible by any other technology. Presently, fact finders are given the broad discretion to decide whether they find this plaintiff credible, and accordingly, whether they believe he is truly in pain and deserves damages for pain and suffering. However, neuroimaging—specifically functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)—could allow those fact finders to visualize whether this plaintiff was hurting by depicting the unique signatures that …

If It (Ain’T) Broke, Don’T Fix It: Twombly, Iqbal, Rule 84, And The Forms, Justin Olson

Seattle University Law Review

The past decade has not been kind to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules). From the growth of summary judgment as a mechanism to let judges instead of juries determine facts, to the love–hate relationship with class actions, judicial interpretations of the Rules have revealed a trend toward complicating the ability of plaintiffs to find redress for their claims. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the shifting standards of pleading requirements under Rule 8. Much has been written by academics and practitioners alike regarding the ripples caused by Twombly and Iqbal. Although the Court would like to …

Khoury V. Seastrand, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 28, 2016), Ronni Boskovich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered three consolidated appeals from a district court judgment, pursuant to a jury verdict, and post-judgment orders awarding costs and denying a new trial in a personal injury action. While the Court addressed numerous issues, the following three questions comprised the bulk of the consolidated appeals: (1) whether an attorney may ask prospective jurors questions concerning a specific verdict amount to determine potential bias or prejudice; (2) whether repeatedly asking questions about that specific amount results in jury indoctrination warranting a mistrial; and (3) when a district court abuses its discretion in dismissing jurors for cause under Jitnan …

Newsroom: Kuckes On Discovery Ruling 7-7-2016, Sheri Qualters, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Electronic Discovery, K. Alex Khoury

Mercer Law Review

The most significant developments in electronic discovery (E-Discovery) law in the Eleventh Circuit in 2015 were the latest amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Amendments), which went into effect on December 1, 2015. As with the last round of amendments in 2006, the 2015 Amendments primarily addressed the rapidly expanding and evolving practice of E-Discovery. Some of the amendments are minor tweaks to existing rules that will have little or no impact on current precedent. Other amendments introduce entirely new rules designed to give the courts and the parties new tools to corral the beast that is E-Discovery. …

Informant Witnesses And The Risk Of Wrongful Convictions, Jessica A. Roth

Articles

Several studies in the last two decades have revealed that false criminal informant testimony is a leading factor in wrongful convictions, along with false confessions, eyewitness misidentification, and faulty forensic science. Although a great deal more remains to be done, many jurisdictions have implemented evidence-based reforms to these last three categories of evidence. Policy about criminal informants, however, seems to be stubbornly stagnant, and relevant social science is virtually nonexistent. This Article questions the relative lack of attention to informant testimony and suggests that the dangers posed by informant testimony are both greater and different than previously thought. Unlike much …

Evidence, W. Randall Bassett, Val Leppert, Stephen A. Mccullers

Mercer Law Review

The 2015 term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit included precedential opinions on a variety of important evidentiary issues. Several Eleventh Circuit cases, as well as a key decision from the United States Supreme Court, further explored the contours of the Confrontation Clause. The Eleventh Circuit also considered a number of cases regarding the admissibility of expert testimony at trial. These cases seem to continue the Eleventh Circuit's recent trend of applying greater scrutiny to lower court decisions excluding expert evidence, while applying a more deferential standard when the lower court allowed expert evidence.

Also …

Newsroom: Goldstein On Drug Databases 6-27-2016, Sheri Qualters, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Gatekeeping Science: Using The Structure Of Scientific Research To Distinguish Between Admissibility And Weight In Expert Testimony, David L. Faigman, Christopher Slobogin, John Monahan

Northwestern University Law Review

Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determines the admissibility of evidence, and the jury, which gauges its weight. In most evidentiary contexts, such as those involving hearsay and character, threshold admissibility obligations are clear and relatively uncontroversial. The same is not true for scientific evidence. The complex nature of scientific inference, and in particular the challenges of reasoning from group data to individual cases, has bedeviled courts. As a result, courts vary considerably on how they define the judge’s gatekeeping task under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its state equivalents.

This …