Explaining the Tension between the Supreme Court's Embrace of Validity as the Touchstone of Admissibility of Expert Testimony and Lower Courts' (Seeming) Rejection of Same

ABSTRACTBy lopsided majorities, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of cases, persistently commanded the lower courts to condition the admission of proffered expert testimony on the demonstrated validity of the proponents’ claims of expertise. In at least one broad area–the so-called forensic sciences–the courts below have largely evaded the Supreme Court's holdings. This paper aims to try to explain this massive defiance by the lower courts in terms of social epistemology.

Download Full-text

The Intractability of Inaccurate Eyewitness Identification

Daedalus ◽

10.1162/daed_a_00522 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 147 (4) ◽

pp. 90-98 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jed S. Rakoff ◽

Elizabeth F. Loftus

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Expert Testimony ◽

Eyewitness Identification ◽

Human Perception ◽

Eyewitness Testimony ◽

Wrongful Convictions ◽

Jury Instructions ◽

Eyewitness Identifications ◽

The U.S ◽

Made In

Inaccurate eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. As early as 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized this danger, but the tests it promulgated to distinguish reliable from unreliable eyewitness testimony were based largely on surmise. More recently, substantial research has demonstrated that, while significant improvements can be made in the manner in which lineups, photo arrays, and other identification procedures are conducted, inherent limitations of human perception, memory, and psychology raise, in many cases, intractable barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony. Where barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony exist, one response is to sensitize jurors to the limitations of eyewitness identifications, but studies to date have not shown that special jury instructions can accomplish that purpose. Moreover, research on expert testimony has produced mixed results, with some studies showing that it helps jurors discriminate between good and bad eyewitness evidence, and other studies showing that it merely creates overall skepticism.

Download Full-text

Waiving Federal Sovereign Immunity in Original Actions Between States

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform ◽

10.36646/mjlr.53.2.waiving ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 447

Author(s):

Sandra Zellmer

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Federal Government ◽

The United States ◽

High Stakes ◽

Sovereign Immunity ◽

Meaningful Participation ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Lower Courts ◽

Reliable Mechanism ◽

The U.S

There are tremendous disparities between high stakes original actions between states before the U.S. Supreme Court, where there is no waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and other types of cases in the lower courts, where a plethora of immunity waivers allow states and other parties to seek relief from the federal government for Fifth Amendment takings, unlawful agency action, and tort claims. Federal actions or omissions are often at the heart of the dispute, and federal involvement may be crucial for purposes of providing an equitable remedy to the state parties, but there is no reliable mechanism for bringing the federal government to an original action before the Supreme Court. This Article shows how federal sovereign immunity stands in the way of comprehensive resolution of interstate water rights and highlights the need for reforms to facilitate meaningful participation by the United States. In particular, it investigates the merits of a waiver of federal sovereign immunity in original actions between the states. Although federal immunity is a staple of our nation’s jurisprudence, it has no constitutional basis and it serves little purpose in this context. The Article concludes that a congressional waiver of federal sovereign immunity would be appropriate and would have few downsides, at least in the case of original actions between states before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Download Full-text

An Agent and Two Principals

American Politics Quarterly ◽

10.1177/1532673x99027002005 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 236-266 ◽

Cited By ~ 25

Author(s):

JAMES C. BRENT

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Religious Freedom ◽

Search And Seizure ◽

Principal Agent Theory ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

Legal Case ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Lower Courts ◽

Political Variables ◽

The U.S

Principal-agent theory recently has been used to analyze responses of the U.S. Court of Appeals to search and seizure decisions of the Supreme Court. This article examines what happens when agents (the U.S. Court of Appeals) are faced with the dilemma of following the conflicting commands of two principals (the Supreme Court and Congress). These conflicting commands take the form of the Court's decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith (1990) and the congressional attempt to overturn this decision in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The results of the multivariate analysis demonstrate that even after controlling on legal (case-fact) and political variables, the U.S. Court of Appeals became more hostile to religious free exercise claims after Smith and became more receptive to such claims after the passage of RFRA. The lower courts appear willing to act as the agents of both the Supreme Court and Congress.

Download Full-text

The DeBoer v. Snyder Trial, 2014

10.1093/oso/9780197600436.003.0013 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 171-190

Author(s):

Michael J. Rosenfeld

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Expert Testimony ◽

Department Chair ◽

Professional Organization ◽

Expert Witnesses ◽

Same Sex ◽

Same Sex Marriage ◽

Same Sex Couples ◽

The U.S

Chapter 13 tells the story of the DeBoer v. Snyder trial, the expert testimony on both sides, and how the witnesses called to defend Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban were found to be entirely lacking in credibility. Defense witness Douglas Allen presented graphs that he admitted were not even intended to be accurate. Defense witness Mark Regnerus’ testimony was disavowed by his department chair and criticized by his professional organization. The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses described the scholarly consensus about the health of children raised by same-sex couples. This scholarly consensus was accepted by Judge Friedman. The DeBoer trial resulted in a victory for plaintiffs DeBoer and Rowse and their children, but the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision on constitutional grounds, necessitating a showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Download Full-text

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s1073110500012912 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 197-198

Author(s):

Joseph R. Zakhary

Keyword(s):

Public Relations ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Federal Trade Commission ◽

Ninth Circuit ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

For Profit ◽

Rule Of Reason ◽

Antitrust Analysis ◽

Business Financing ◽

The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

Download Full-text