Evidence Commons^™

The Lack Of Deference To Medical Opinions In Adjudicating Social Security Disability Claims, Amrita Maharaj

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

P-Values, Priors, And Procedure In Antidiscrimination Law, Jason R. Bent

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inefficient Evidence, Alex Stein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Saving An Old Friend From Extinction: A Proposal To Amend Rather Than To Abrogate The Ancient Documents Hearsay Exception, Peter Nicolas

Articles

This Essay critically assesses a pending, proposed amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence—slated to take effect in December 2017—that would abrogate Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16), the hearsay exception for ancient documents. The proposed amendment was motivated largely by a fear that large quantities of potentially unreliable, stockpiled, electronically stored information (ESI) are approaching the threshold age for being deemed "ancient" and could thus be swept into evidence via the exception.

In Part I of this Essay, I provide an overview of the proposed amendment. In Part II, I contend that although the proposal is a well-intentioned effort to …

Why Illinois Should Adopt Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(18) To Allow The Learned Treatise Exception To The Hearsay Rule, 39 S. Ill. U. L.J. 275 (2015), Ralph Ruebner, Katarina Durcova, Amy Taylor

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

Illinois still adheres to a rigid and outdated common law principle that treats a learned treatise as hearsay. This principle stands at odds with the adoption of Federal Rules of Evidence 703 ("FRE 703")' and 705 ("FRE 705") by the Illinois Supreme Court. Illinois courts have developed clever ways to get around the common law prohibition thereby creating an incoherent and inconsistent jurisprudence that at times yields bizarre outcomes.

Adopting the federal learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule would set out a consistent standard in Illinois for admitting learned treatises and allowing them as substantive evidence. Now that Illinois …

Wrongful Convictions And Upstream Reform In The Criminal Justice System, Kate Kruse

Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores the viability of upstream criminal justice reforms within the context of an adversary and procedural system of criminal justice, focusing on reforms in eyewitness identification procedures. Mistaken eyewitness identification evidence is often cited as the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the United States. Eyewitness identification reforms have also been the most developed upstream efforts to grow out of the innocence movement. The success and limitation of upstream reform in eyewitness identification shed light on the efficacy of upstream criminal justice system reform more generally, as well as in areas that are less developed, such as the …

Fitting The Forum To The Pernicious Fuss: A Dispute System Design To Address Implicit Bias And 'Isms In The Workplace, Elayne E. Greenberg

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This paper proposes a dispute system design to address workplace discrimination caused by implicit biases so that employees and employers involved in such disputes can secure a more responsive justice than existing legal processes are able to provide. Workplace discrimination caused by implicit bias continues to contaminate our work environment despite our focused legal efforts to combat such overt "isms" as sexism, racism, ageism, and ableism. Although overt expressions of bias have significantly decreased in recent years, expressions of implicit bias, the primary cause of workplace discrimination, persist.

This discussion takes place in three parts. Part One describes implicit bias, …

Unspringing The Witness Memory And Demeanor Trap: What Every Judge And Juror Needs To Know About Cognitive Psychology And Witness Credibility, Mark W. Bennett

American University Law Review

The soul of America's civil and criminal justice systems is the ability of jurors and judges to accurately determine the facts of a dispute. This invariably implicates the credibility of witnesses. In making credibility determinations, jurors and judges necessarily decide the accuracy of witnesses' memories and the effect of the witnesses' demeanor on their credibility. Almost all jurisdictions' pattern jury instructions about witness credibility explain nothing about how a witness's memories for events and conversations work-and how startlingly fallible memories actually are. They simply instruct the jurors to consider the witness's "memory" with no additional guidance. Similarly, the same pattern …

Surrogate Testimony After Williams: A New Answer To The Question Of Who May Testify Regarding The Contents Of A Laboratory Report, Jennifer Alberts

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Promises And Pitfalls Of State Eyewitness Identification Reforms, Nicholas A. Kahn-Fogel

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of state-based eyewitness identification reforms, including legislative directives, evidentiary rules, and judicial interpretations of state constitutions as providing greater protection against the use of unreliable eyewitness evidence than the United State Supreme Court offered in its 1977 decision in Manson v. Brathwaite. While previous scholarship has included thorough consideration of a single state's eyewitness law, state-by-state analysis of a sub-issue in eyewitness law, and brief general surveys of state approaches to eyewitness reform, this article adds to the current body of scholarship with an in-depth evaluation of eyewitness identification law in states that have …

Doin' Time For An Unproven Crime: The Problem Of Unpreserved Evidence Sufficiency Issues In Criminal Appeals, Richard Sanders

St. Thomas Law Review

Sections I and II of the article lay out the general principles of the preservation rule and its fundamental-error exception. Section III discusses the Florida cases that have wrestled with the problem of unpreserved sufficiency issues in criminal cases. The problem in the cases-seen in F.B. and in the pre-F.B. district court cases-is that Florida courts do not say that all valid-but-unpreserved sufficiency issues should be remedied as fundamental error. This means there will be some cases where the evidence in the record fails to establish all the elements of the crime of conviction but the court will affirm because …

The Case For Evidence-Based Free Exercise Accommodation: Why The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Is Bad Public Policy, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

Cell Phones, Brain Cancer, And Scientific Outliers In Murray V. Motorola, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

Pending before the District of Columbia's highest court in a case asking whether cell phones can cause cancer is whether to replace the jurisdiction's venerable Frye standard for reviewing the admissibility of scientific evidence with the approach adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow. The author analyzes one aspect of the two evidentiary standards that leads him to question the trial judge's suggestion in Murray v. Motorola that adopting the Daubert perspective would allow greater leeway in excluding the plaintiff's evidence.

Executive Privilege As Constitution Common Law: Establishing Ground Rules In Political-Branch Information Disputes, Riley T. Keenan

Law Faculty Publications

In December 2010, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a gun battle along the border between the United States and Mexico. Police traced two AK-47 assault rifles found at the scene to Jaime Avila, whom officials at the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) had previously suspected of purchasing weapons in the United States on behalf of “violent Mexican drug trafficking organizations.” Instead of arresting Avila and a number of other “straw purchasers,” however, ATF allowed him to continue buying guns in order to trace his purchases to a “large-scale gun trafficking organization.” …

The Promises And Pitfalls Of State Eyewitness Identification Reforms, Nicholas A. Kahn-Fogel

Faculty Scholarly Works

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of state-based eyewitness identification reforms, including legislative directives, evidentiary rules, and judicial interpretations of state constitutions as providing greater protection against the use of unreliable eyewitness evidence than the United State Supreme Court offered in its 1977 decision in Manson v. Brathwaite. While previous scholarship has included thorough consideration of a single state's eyewitness law, state-by-state analysis of a sub-issue in eyewitness law, and brief general surveys of state approaches to eyewitness reform, this article adds to the current body of scholarship with an in-depth evaluation of eyewitness identification law in states that have …

Forensic Evidence And The Court Of Appeal For England And Wales, Lissa Griffin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal has extensively analyzed the role of forensic evidence. In doing so, the court has grappled with the admissibility and reliability of a broad range of forensic evidence, from DNA and computer forensics to medical and psychological proof, to more outlying subjects like facial mapping, fiber analysis, or voice identification. The court has analyzed these subjects from two perspectives: the admissibility of such evidence in the lower courts and the admissibility of such evidence as fresh evidence on appeal. In both contexts, the court has taken a practical approach to admitting forensic proof …

Diagnosis Dangerous: Why State Licensing Boards Should Step In To Prevent Mental Health Practitioners From Speculating Beyond The Scope Of Professional Standards, Jennifer S. Bard

Utah Law Review

This Article reviews the use of mental health experts to provide testimony on the future dangerousness of individuals who have already been convicted of a crime that qualifies them for the death penalty. Although this practice is common in many states that still retain the death penalty, it most frequently occurs in Texas because of a statute that makes it mandatory for juries to determine the future dangerousness of the defendant they have just found guilty. Both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have protested the use of mental health professionals in this setting because there are …

Foreword, J. Amy Dillard

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Posnerian Hearsay: Slaying The Discretion Dragon, Liesa L. Richter

Faculty Articles

Distinguished jurist and scholar, Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit penned a concurrence in United States v. Boyce, 742 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2014), in which he launched a scathing attack on the scheme of categorical hearsay exceptions embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence. After characterizing the existing hearsay regime as bad “folk psychology,” Judge Posner called for the repeal of categorical hearsay exceptions in favor of case-by-case determinations about the “reliability” of particular hearsay statements by trial judges. Prior to adoption of the Federal Rules, evidence experts debated whether a …