Excited Utterance

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

#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.

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.

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.

Explaining the Evidence. Dave Lagnado from University College London discusses his new book, Explaining the Evidence, which talks about how people construct and use causal models to understand the world and make decisions. He also suggests how recent scholarship in causal modelling can help us improve our decisionmaking.

The Proof. Fred Schauer from the University of Virginia discusses his new book, The Proof, which discusses how evidence law and theory can help us make better decisions in everyday life.

Should Evidence Law Exclude Apologies? Jennifer Pusateri from George Washington University argues that the rules of evidence should exclude apologies on both policy and evidentiary grounds.

Lay Identifications Based on Surveillance Video. George Bach from the University of New Mexico discusses the use of lay witnesses to make identifications on surveillance videos.

Guiding Jurors on Damage Award Decisions. Valerie Hans from Cornell Law School discusses her recent psychological research on how the legal system might provide guidance to jurors assessing pain and suffering damages.

Cognitive Bias in Forensic Pathology Decisions. Itiel Dror from University College London shows that medical examiner decisions can be influenced by the non-medical information to which the experts are exposed, and argues for restrictions on the ways in which medical examiners use such information.

Fourteenth Amendment Confrontation. Evan Bernick from Northern Illinois University challenges the originalist arguments made by the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington and argues that an originalist perspective on the clause must take into account understandings of Confrontation at the time of the Reconstruction amendments.

Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions into Evidence? David Crump from the University of Houston discusses the challenging issue of confessions and their place in evidence law.

Time to Abandon the Testimonial Oath. Ian Gallacher from Syracuse University takes a critical look at the familiar ritual of oathtaking and suggests that perhaps it is time to modernize the practice.