Evidence Commons^™

Litigating From The Prison Of The Mind: A Cognitive Right To Post-Conviction Counsel, Ken Strutin

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

No abstract provided.

How Sound Is The Science? Applying Daubert To Biomechanical Experts’ Injury Causation Opinions, Loren Peck

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Epigenetics And Toxic Torts: How Epidemiological Evidence Informs Causation, Kerriann Laubach

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dna, Blue Bus, And Phase Changes, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn

Faculty Scholarship

In ‘Exploring the Proof Paradoxes’, Mike Redmayne comprehensively surveyed the puzzles at the intersection of law and statistics, the most famous of which is the Blue Bus problem, which prohibits legal actors from ascribing liability purely on the basis of probabilistic evidence. DNA evidence, however, is a longstanding exception to Blue Bus. Like Blue Bus, DNA presents probabilistic evidence of identity. Unlike Blue Bus, DNA is widely accepted as legitimate, even when it stands alone as so-called ‘naked’ statistical evidence. Observers often explain such DNA exceptionalism in two ways: either that people break down in extreme cases, or relatedly, that …

Crossing The Line: Daubert, Dual Roles, And The Admissibility Of Forensic Mental Health Testimony, Sara Gordon

Cardozo Law Review

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals often testify as forensic experts in civil commitment and criminal competency proceedings. When an individual clinician assumes both a treatment and a forensic role in the context of a single case, however, that clinician forms a dual relationship with the patient - a practice that creates a conflict of interest and violates professional ethical guidelines. The court, the parties, and the patient are all affected by this conflict and the biased testimony that may result from dual relationships. When providing forensic testimony, the mental health professional's primary duty is to the court, not to …

Bruton On Balance: Standardizing Redacted Codefendant Confessions Through Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Margaret Dodson

Vanderbilt Law Review

Joint criminal trials are a relatively common practice in the American criminal justice system. When multiple criminal defendants are charged in a single crime-especially in conspiracy cases-courts and prosecutors alike favor joint trials because of their comparable efficiency to individual trials. However, joint trials can raise significant procedural and constitutional concerns for codefendants. One such issue arises when the government seeks to introduce the confession of a non-testifying defendant (hereinafter a "declarantdefendant") that inculpates other codefendants.

When introduced, such confessions raise potential Sixth Amendment issues under Bruton v. United States. A Bruton violation occurs in a joint trial when a …

Weighing The Admissibility Of Fmri Technology Under Fre 403: For The Law, Fmri Changes Everything -- And Nothing, Justin Amirian

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Lie detection; fMRI; Evidence; polygraph

Strange Bedfellows: How Expanding The Public Safety Exception To Miranda Benefits Counterterrorism Suspects, Geoffrey Corn, Chris Jenks

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering The Standards Of Admission For Prior Bad Acts Evidence In Light Of Research On False Memories And Witness Preparation, Jason Tortora

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Principles, Politics And Privilege: How The Crime-Fraud Exception Can Preserve The Strength Of The Attorney-Client Privilege For Government Lawyers And Their Clients, Michael W. Glenn

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Court wrongly excluded evidence of low-impact defense when it required a biomechanical expert testify about the nature of the accident, erroneously interpreting Hallmark v. Eldgridge Instead, Hallmark requires sufficient foundation for admission of testimony and evidence, specifically excluding a biomechanical expert’s testimony under NRS 50.275. The Court additionally held that the District Court erred when it ultimately struck the defendant’s answer for violations of the pretrial order precluding defendant from raising a minor or low impact defense.

"Gatekeeping" Agency Reliance On Scientific And Technical Materials After Daubert: Ensuring Relevance And Reliability In The Administrative Process, Paul S. Miller, Bert W. Rein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Always Hurt Me: Why California Should Expand The Admissibility Of Prior Acts Of Child Abuse, Lindsay Gochnour

Pepperdine Law Review

This Comment seeks to explore the effect that the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence would have on child maltreatment cases and the benefits that would be afforded to child abuse victims if they were provided the same legal protections as victims of other crimes. This Comment argues that expanding the California Evidence Code to allow the admission of prior acts of psychological and emotional child maltreatment would make great progress for the protection of child abuse victims and the prosecution of their (often losing) cases.

At Fifty, Title Vii Needs A Facelift: Two Reforms That Would Ensure Title Vii Works To Prohibit All Racial Discrimination In Employment, Joshua P. Thompson, Ralph W. Kasarda

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

No abstract provided.

Video: Adding To Your Case: Examining And Cross Examining Expert Witnesses, Michael J. Dale, Kathryn Webber, Valerie B. Barnhart Esq., Jack L. Harari M.D., J.D., F.A.A.E.M.

NSU Law Seminar Series

Learn skills for using expert witness testimony at trial: Developing strategy for selecting topics and order of presentation Using proper form of questioning on direct and cross Understanding rules of evidence, procedure, and ethics Two role play demonstrations help you learn techniques

The Hearsay Rule As A Rule Of Admission Revisited, Ronald J. Allen

Fordham Law Review

Now to substance. To intelligently analyze what changes to the hearsay rule should be considered, one needs to examine: first, the overall objectives of the field of evidence; second, the particular objectives of the Federal Rules of Evidence; third, how well the hearsay rule advances, or retards, those objectives; and finally, the sense and sensibility of any proposed changes.

Rethinking The Rationale(S) For Hearsay Exceptions, Stephen A. Saltzburg

Fordham Law Review

The thirty-seven principal provisions that permit out-of-court statements to be admitted for their truth under the Federal Rules of Evidence are found in Article VIII of the Rules. There are eight provisions in Rule 801(d), twenty-three provisions in Rule 803, five provisions in Rule 804 and one provision in Rule 807 that can be relied upon to admit hearsay evidence for its truth value.

Reality Check: A Modest Modification To Rationalize Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter

Fordham Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence (or “the Rules”) identify hearsay that is admissible, notwithstanding the classic hearsay prohibition, by delineating categories of hearsay statements that may be admitted into evidence. For example, “dying declarations” of now-unavailable declarants may be admitted in homicide prosecutions or civil cases. “Excited utterances” relating to a startling event also may be admitted for their truth. The purported justification for admitting certain categories of hearsay rests upon the inherent reliability of human statements uttered in certain contexts, as well as litigants’ need for crucial evidence to build cases.

Prior Inconsistent Statements And Substantive Evidence—Federal Rule 801(D)(1)(A): The Compromise, Stephen A. Saltzburg

Fordham Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) is a compromise. The Supreme Court’s version of the Rule, which it submitted to Congress in 1972, would have made all prior inconsistent statements of a witness present in court for cross-examination admissible as substantive evidence. The Court’s proposal was strongly favored by the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (or “the Advisory Committee”) members who drafted the Rule. They submitted it to the Court knowing that it was consistent with the approach taken by some states and favored by authorities like John Henry Wigmore, Edmund Morgan, and Charles McCormick. But the Court’s …

The Philip D. Reed Lecture Series: Symposium On Hearsay Reform, Panel Discussion

Fordham Law Review

This Panel Discussion was held on October 9, 2015, at John Marshall Law School. This transcript of the Panel Discussion has been lightly edited and represents the panelists’ individual views only and in no way reflects those of their affiliated firms, organizations, law schools, or the judiciary.