Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Cases.  Debby Denno from Fordham Law School draws on a long-term empirical project and investigates what types of neuroscience evidence really drive criminal cases.

137 Deborah Denno

Past-Acts Evidence in Excessive Force Litigation.  James Stone from Stanford University discusses some proposed reforms to the way that courts handle past-acts evidence, both with respect to plaintiffs and police-defendants, in excessive police force cases.

136 James Stone

Snitching.  Sasha Natapoff from Harvard Law School discusses the problems of criminal informant testimony.

135 Alexandra Natapoff

Provisional Assumptions.  Heidi Liu from George Washington University Law School discusses the problems of asking jurors to ignore inadmissible evidence and proposes an alternative mechanism – the “provisional assumption.”

134 Heidi Liu

The Law and Science of Eyewitness Evidence.  Brandon Garrett from Duke University and Thomas Albright from the Salk Institute discuss the latest research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony and related reforms that have surfaced from courts and legislatures.

133 Thomas Albright & Brandon Garrett

Expertise in Crisis.  Dave Caudill from Villanova University discusses the current crisis expertise and how a more modest and sociological view of scientific inquiry might encourage greater acceptance of consensus science.

132 David Caudill

Neuroscience, Neutrality, and the Rules of Evidence. 
 Steven Friedland and Amy Overman from Elon University discuss how neuroscience findings about our cognitive biases should inform the way we think about the rules of evidence, and whether those rules can ever truly be neutral.

131 Steven Friedland & Amy Overman

The Neglected Origins of the Hearsay Rule in American Slavery.  David Sklansky of Stanford Law School discusses the Supreme Court case of Queen v. Hepburn, a freedom suit in the early Republic which proved to be a turning point in the development of the hearsay rule in American evidence law.

130 David Sklansky

Digital Habit Evidence.  Andrew Ferguson from American University discusses the habit rule under Rule 406, and how the Internet of Things and digital habit evidence might change its importance in the future.

129 Andrew Ferguson

Are the Federal Rules of Evidence Unconstitutional?  Ethan Leib from Fordham University asks whether the way in which the Federal Rules of Evidence came into being and the structure by which they are amended violates constitutional separation of powers.

128 Ethan Leib

Domestic Homicides Since Giles v. California.  Caren Morrison from George State University explores how courts have handled domestic homicide cases in the wake of Giles v. California, which narrowed the forfeiture exception to the Confrontation Clause.

127 Caren Morrison

The False Promise of Pena-Rodriguez.  Daniel Harawa from Washington University in St. Louis discusses the problem of racial bias in jury deliberations, and how Rule 606(b), despite the Supreme Court's decision in Pena-Rodriguez, still shields much of it from redress.

126 Daniel Harawa

Overhauling Rules of Evidence in Pro Se Courts.  Andrew Budzinski from the University of the District of Columbia argues why the traditional rules of evidence are inappropriate for courts with largely pro se litigants, and discussed what rules if any should replace them.

125 Andrew Budzinski

Virtual Trials.  Susan Bandes from DePaul College of Law discusses the use of virtual trials prompted by the pandemic, their future, as well as what lessons we can learn from them about in-person trials.

124 Susan Bandes

Knowledge and Legal Proof.  Sarah Moss from the University of Michigan discusses how the reasonable doubt standard and other burdens of proof relate to teh philosophical concept of "knowledge."

123 Sarah Moss

Rethinking Evidentiary Rules in an Age of Bench Trials.  Henry Wang from Indiana University and the China University of Political Science and Law discusses why the existing rules of evidence are inappropriate for bench trials, and what alternative evidentiary rules for bench trials might look like instead.

122 Henry Wang

The Theoretical Foundations of Evidence Law.  Tomer Kenneth from NYU School of Law discusses how legal systems should handle truth claims, and how those decisions are more about political legitimacy than mere objective accuracy.

121 Tomer Kenneth

#BelieveWomen and the Presumption of Innocence.  Kim Ferzan from the University of Pennsylvania discusses efforts to respect and believe complainants raising sexual assault allegations, such as #BelieveWomen, and how they interact with the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

120 Kimberly Ferzan

The Modest Impact of the Modern Confrontation Clause.  Diana Bibb from William & Mary Law School discusses her paper with Jeff Bellin exploring the intersection of hearsay and the modern Confrontation Clause, and suggesting that Crawford's impact may be far more limited that commonly thought.

119 Diana Bibb

The Truth Machines.  Jinee Lokaneeta from Drew University discusses the modern rise of truth machines -- lie detectors, brain scans, and truth serums -- in the Indian criminal justice system.

Get Started

Download the App