About Jules M Epstein (hehimhis) It is a regular occurrence in trials for one party to approach the Judge and say “Your Honor,” they just opened the door to X; may I now ask questions or present evidence on that point?” The response may be more reactive than reasoned, and that is because we rarely discuss the legal principles underpinning
Jurors, and perhaps people in general, are often poor at judging those whose lives and experiences differ from their own. June’s BRAIN LESSONS wrote about one aspect of that inadequacy, what Grant told us is called “Conditional-Contrastive Inculpation” [see https://law.temple.edu/aer/2022/06/17/brain-lessons-the-words-in-a-sentence-of-guilt/ ]. In its simplest words, we become judgmental by saying that “I wouldn’t have responded
David Raack[1] Although some law schools have robust and well-developed advocacy programs, a significant number don’t. Schools without a strong program may wish to develop one, and this article addresses that scenario. (The term “advocacy program” is used here to include mock trial, moot court, and ADR components.) The purpose of this discussion is
Clarity for a trial lawyer can come, often, far from the courtroom or a law office. For example, on a beach in Florida, just after sunrise, running with a colleague. And it was in such a place, running along the Gulf of Mexico, that some clarity came to what I originally thought was a controversial
Did you know about the lawyer who: Told their client they could not testify because their criminal record and its details would be admissible where the law was directly to the contrary. Let the jury know their client “lawyered up” and sat idly by while the prosecutor argued that as proof of guilt. Filed a
Which of these is “true?” “Veredictum, quasi dictum veritas; ut judicium quasi juris dictum. A verdict is, as it were, the saying of the truth, in the same manner that a judgment is the saying of the law.” https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Veredictum (last visited March 17, 2022). The jury’s job is not to determine the truth of what
The power of ordering – where you place a fact or argument – should be beyond question. But read on – what goes first at trial may not always determine outcome. The importance of ordering is known well beyond the courtroom and is the starting place for much of cognitive psychology. It is proved in
Nearly thirty-five years ago, the problems with ‘forensic’ hypnosis were acknowledged as real – “[T]hat hypnosis guarantees the accuracy of recall is as yet without established foundation…” “[I]n fact, hypnosis often has no effect at all on memory.” “The most common response to hypnosis, however, appears to be an increase in both correct and incorrect
We have all seen it or read it in a transcript – the self-satisfied if not smirking delivery of the lines “were you lying then or are you lying now” after a witness has been impeached. And what follows is all-too-often an explanation that defeats the juxtaposition of the two differing versions of events –
Do the photographs, paintings or flags in a courthouse or jury deliberation room affect how a case is decided? That question led to the reversal of a criminal conviction in Tennessee, part of the ongoing discussion of race, racism and implicit bias that continues in the criminal justice system. And that reversal was based in