Identifying individuals from one’s own ‘group’ is easier than identifying someone from outside the ‘group.’ If you were to stop me and say “but that’s obvious, it’s always easier to identify people you already know than identifying a stranger” I’d have to respond that “you mis-read what I wrote. ‘Group’ does not mean ‘friends’ or
On Friday, November 17 the Cardozo School of Law presented a conference titled “25 Years of the Innocence Project: Impact on Law, Policy and the Courts.” This author discussed eyewitness testimony and the IP’s impact on reducing the risk of erroneous identification convictions. The below summarize the views that were offered. The phenomenon
Lawyers ‘get’ scales. The scales of justice. The scales that are tipped ever-so-slightly when the preponderance burden of proof is explained. Indeed, that quantitative weighing is core to a civil case adjudication, and when mishandled may cause error and reversal: the district court judge erred when he interrupted counsel’s argument and informed the jury
In one sense the rules on using proof of character to explain conduct are simple – no character evidence in civil cases, some character evidence in criminal cases, and when character evidence is allowed it must be limited to the pertinent trait. There are honest murderers, but no non-violent murderers; and there are violent thieves,
As Washington continues to grapple with the nuances of lying, some citizens suffer from a stigmatizing federal law that treats them as if they were convicted liars without any logical or scientific justification. Consider this scenario: An eyewitness foils a potential terrorist act, saving thousands of lives and earning praise from the community for bravery. The
Why impeach a witness? Hopefully, with good cause. We impeach witnesses to weaken their credibility and/or to advance our own stories. As described by Charles Rose in FUNDAMENTAL TRIAL ADVOCACY, “[a] properly planned impeachment is an effective exclamation point to a strong cross-examination.” But to be effective – and indeed to be warranted – another
No area of law may be more vexing, and more subject to dispute, than the admission or exclusion of “other acts” evidence – often mis-labed “prior bad acts” evidence – in criminal cases. Evidence of an “act” that only conveys the actor’s character is inadmissible; but evidence with a non-character purpose may be admissible, subject
The below post comes from Temple Beasley School of Law student Veronica Schad, currently a 2L. It is an anecdotal but useful ‘survey’ regarding the prevalence of social media evidence in Family Court proceedings and the judicial response to the same. During my summer legal internship, I found myself in Family Court at 15th and
The April 2017 decision by Attorney General Sessions to not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) was announced as part of what he claimed would be efforts to “advance forensic science and help combat the rise in violent crime.” Whatever the Department of Justice has in mind for combatting a putative rise in
Rule 703 embodies a tension between letting experts do their jobs of gathering information and forming opinions and limiting disclosure of what information the experts gathered. Experts who are good go to lots and lots of sources before they reach a conclusion. And this is encouraged under Rule 703, as long as those sources are