About Jules M Epstein (hehimhis) I often claim, in Evidence lectures, that Rule 105 is the most powerful of the rules. Why? It justifies admission of almost any piece of proof, no matter how much collateral damage it carries, because “[t]he presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions,” Samia v. United States, 599 U.S. 635, 646 (2024), is an article of
This essay is part of a White Paper being submitted to the International Academy of Trial Lawyers in support of a motion calling for abolition of the death penalty. I have been a capital case litigator for thirty-plus years in Pennsylvania in the United States of America. What does that connote? Since the early
In a law school class, one way to assess a student’s performance (and professionalism) is with Three Cs – consistency, clarity, and correctness. Considering the Vice President’s recent attack on federal judges for reviewing the constitutionality of various Trump policies, by the standards that would be used to assess a law student’s competence (and fitness
The difference between Pennsylvania’s approach to judges and expert ‘gatekeeping’ and that under the Federal Rules of Evidence is stark. For the Commonwealth and its Frye jurisprudence, judges are told to ‘leave science to the scientists.’ The proscription is clear and far-reaching: [T]rial courts may not question the merits of the expert’s scientific theories,
In the late 1800s, when a child wrote to a newspaper editor asking whether there is a Santa Claus, the editor replied in what became one of the most quoted and reprinted editorials ever: Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you
BY JULES EPSTEIN When we look at something – an inanimate object, an event unfolding – does that stimulus go into our brain and tell the brain “here I am, recognize me!” Put more simply, is it like a camera where sensory input paints the picture on the ‘film.’ Or is the brain wired differently,
By Jules Epstein What wins the day in arguing a motion in limine? A single argument? Or is it a decision tree approach of “Your Honor, we prevail because of Rule A, but Rule D also applies and so might F?” One answer may come from studying the dilution effect and an experiment on
When Simon and Garfunkle wrote “listen to the sound of silence” they were not urging a principle applicable to hearsay analysis. But the Michigan Supreme Court took that notion to heart in a recent decision that ‘read between the lines’ and found that words never mentioned in court, but inferable from context, violate not only
By Jules Epstein Are we wrong to front bad facts? Is that “sponsorship,” i.e., giving the bad fact your imprimatur? The question may sound crazy – and if you read to the end you should see that the answer to each of those two queries is a resound “no.” But sponsorship theory lives, and it
As we approach the June 27 debate between President Biden and presumptive nominee Trump, much advice has been forthcoming as to how Mr. Biden should proceed. Written without benefit of polling data or focus groups, the below column makes suggestions based on persuasion techniques. To prevail in Thursday’s debate and then in the election,