Evidence Commons^™

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.

The New Stock Market: Sense And Nonsense, Merritt B. Fox, Lawrence R. Glosten, Gabriel Rauterberg

Faculty Scholarship

How stocks are traded in the United States has been totally transformed. Gone are the dealers on NASDAQ and the specialists at the NYSE. Instead, a company’s stock can now be traded on up to sixty competing venues where a computer matches incoming orders. High-frequency traders (HFTs) post the majority of quotes and are the preponderant source of liquidity in the new market.

Many practices associated with the new stock market are highly controversial, as illustrated by the public furor following the publication of Michael Lewis’s book Flash Boys. Critics say that HFTs use their speed in discovering changes in …

Exporting The Hearsay Provisions Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence,, Roger C. Park

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Decision-Making In The Dark: How Pre-Trial Errors Change The Narrative In Criminal Jury Trials, Kara Mackillop, Neil Vidmar

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past decade and a half, a great deal of attention has rightfully been given to the issue of wrongful convictions. In 2003, Jim Dwyer, Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck published Actual Innocence, an eyeopening treatise on the reality of wrongful convictions in the United States. In the years since, more than 1400 innocent persons have been exonerated, and a very diverse research community of attorneys, academics, social scientists, and activists has developed in response to the realization offlaws in our criminal justice system. In 2012, Brandon Garrett's Convicting the Innocent quantitatively evaluated the first 250 DNA exonerations and …

The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Michael L. Orenstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.

Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons have been understandably heralded as important holdings under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that has found the death penalty “disproportional” for certain types of defendants and crimes. This Article argues, however, that the cases have a far more revolutionary reach than their conventional understanding. In both cases the Court went one step beyond its usual two-step analysis of assessing whether imposing the death penalty violated “evolving standards of decency.” This extra step looked at why even though intellectual disability and youth …

Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Horwitz On The Role Of Grand Juries, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court's Analysis Of Issues Raised By Death Penalty Litigants In The Court's 2004 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Adverse Inference Instruction After Revised Rule 37(E): An Evidence-Based Proposal, Shira A. Sheindlin, Natalie M. Orr

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Symposium On The Challenges Of Electronic Evidence, Daniel J. Capra, Sidney A. Fitzwater, Peter Pitegoff, Jeffrey S. Sutton, Paul Grimm, John Haried, Richard W. Vorder Bruegge, Jeffrey Bellin, Paul Scechtman, Deirdre M. Smith, Shira A. Scheindlin, David Shonka, Daniel Gelb, Andrew Goldsmith, George Paul, Paul Lippe

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Evidence, John E. Hall Jr., W. Scott Henwood, Jacque Smith Clarke

Mercer Law Review

This year represents the first full survey period' in which the "new" Georgia Evidence Code, title 24 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.), takes effect. These new rules took effect on January 1, 2013. The rules conform in large part to the Federal Rules of Evidence and have continued to change the face of evidence law in Georgia. Appellate cases are now providing guidance and direction on the courts' interpretation of the rules, and these cases affect litigants' strategies. This Survey highlights cases decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court between June 1, …

Contents May Have Shifted: Disentangling The Best Evidence Rule From The Rule Against Hearsay, Colin Miller

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The rule against hearsay covers a statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but does not cover a statement offered for another purpose. Meanwhile, the Best Evidence Rule states that a party seeking to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph must produce the original or account for its nonproduction. Does this mean that the Rule is inapplicable when a party seeks to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted in a writing, recording or photograph? Most courts have answered this question in the affirmative. This essay argues these courts are wrong.

Symposium On The Challenges Of Electronic Evidence, Panel Discussion

Fordham Law Review

The Phillip D. Reed Lecture Series: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules

The Court As Gatekeeper: Preventing Unreliable Pretrial Ediscovery From Jeopardizing A Reliable Fact-Finding Process, Daniel K. Gelb

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.