Changes in the Federal Rules of Evidence in Criminal Trials

1934 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 849
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Federal Rules Of Evidence

scholarly journals Cabining Judicial Discretion Over Forensic Evidence with a New Special Relevance Rule

2018 ◽  
pp. 173
Author(s):  
Emma Shoucair
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Forensic Science ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Forensic Evidence ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Science Reform ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Federal Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Special Relevance

Modern forensic evidence suffers from a number of flaws, including insufficient scientific grounding, exaggerated testimony, lack of uniform best practices, and an inefficacious standard for admission that regularly allows judges to admit scientifically unsound evidence. This Note discusses these problems, lays out the current landscape of forensic science reform, and suggests the addition of a new special relevance rule to the Federal Rules of Evidence (and similar rules in state evidence codes). This proposed rule would cabin judicial discretion to admit non-DNA forensic evidence by barring prosecutorial introduction of such evidence in criminal trials absent a competing defense expert or a high showing of scientific viability.

A Legal Primer for Neuropsychologists?

1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-268
Author(s):  
Nils R. Varney
Keyword(s):  
Legal Issues ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Psychological Testimony

The editors of this book state in the Preface that “this volume is not a ‘how to guidebook.’ ” While this is certainly true, the chapters explaining legal issues (e.g., rules of evidence) offer what is essentially an advanced primer on evidentiary law as it relates to psychological testimony in civil and criminal trials. It is in this regard that the work has its greatest value.

scholarly journals Whats Wrong With Expert Testimony? What Should Be Done About It?

1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen E. Draper
Keyword(s):  
Expert System ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Present System ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Federal Rules Of Evidence

The use of expert testimony in American litigation has always been controversial. This paper first presents a synopsis of the complaints against expert testimony. Then the rules for expert testimony established by the Federal Rules of Evidence are presented to provide the foundation for a critical examination of the existing expert system. The paper reviews and scrutinizes a number of proposals to modify the present system as they relate to the Federal Rules. The paper concludes with a recommendation that integrates elements of these proposals with techniques used in European courts of law.

scholarly journals Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using a Multifactor Test to Evaluate the Admissibility of Evidence at Class Certification

2019 ◽  
pp. 149-171
Author(s):  
Cinan Lesley
Keyword(s):  
Certification Process ◽  
Admissible State ◽  
Daubert Standard ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Federal Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Circuit Courts

Circuit courts are split on whether and to what extent the Daubert standard should apply at class certification. Potential plaintiffs believe that application of Daubert would make it nearly impossible to obtain class certification. For potential defendants, the application of the standard is an important way to ensure that the certification process is fair. This Note examines the incentives underlying the push to apply the Daubert standard at class certification and the benefits and drawbacks associated with that proposal. It proposes a solution that balances the concerns of both plaintiffs and defendants by focusing on three factors: the obstacles to admissibility, the centrality of the evidence to certification, and the likelihood that evidence could evolve to an admissible state after full discovery. This standard could also be applied when admissibility concerns grounded in other provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence are raised.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document