Excited Utterance

Meta-Evidence and Preliminary Injunctions. Maggie Wittlin from Fordham University discusses the applicability of the rules of evidence to preliminary injunction hearings and how the concept of "meta-evidence" might help us think about the kinds of evidence offered at pre-trial hearings more generally.

The Limits of Legitimate Contextual Interpretation in the Age of Statutes. Ed Imwinkelried from UC Davis School of Law  discusses the intersection of evidence law and interpretative methods as he argues in favor of a “moderate textualist” reading of the Federal Rules.

Autopsy of a Crime Lab. Brandon Garrett from Duke University discusses his new book, Autopsy of a Crime Lab, which reviews the problems in forensic science and attempts to carve a path forward for forensic science reform.

Confrontation in the Age of Plea Bargaining. Will Ortman from Wayne State University argues for a modern interpretation of the Confrontation Clause that would give defendants a right to criminal depositions and that would in turn promote more informed and accurate plea bargaining.

The Content of Our Characters. Teneille Brown from the University of Utah reformulates the character evidence rules in light of existing psychological and neuroscience research.

Zombie Forensics: The Polygraph in England and Wales. Kryiakos Kotsoglou from Northumbia Law School discusses the recent use of polygraph in the UK penal system outside of trial and its troubling ramifications.

Chancy Causation. Alexi Lahav from the University of Connecticut School of Law critiques the idea of but-for causation and discusses how the law should think about causation in contexts in which it can only be proven probabilistically.

99 Episodes of Excited Utterance. In celebration of the podcast's 100th episode, co-hosts Ed Cheng and Alex Nunn look back on 99 Episodes of Excited Utterance, share some funny anecdotes, and discuss trends in recent evidence scholarship.

Proof Discontinuities and Civil Settlements. Mark Spottswood from Florida State University discusses how different types of burdens of proof -- specifically discontinuous versus continuous ones -- might impact settlement behavior.

The Bite Mark Dentists and the Counterattack on Forensic Science Reform. Marvin Zalman from Wayne State University critiques a recent article defending bitemark evidence and discusses why forensic science reform proves to be so difficult.

Privacy as Privilege. Rebecca Wexler from the University of California Berkeley talks about the Stored Communications Act and how it blocks criminal defense subpoenas, effectively creating an unprecedented privilege for online communications.

Unmasking Demeanor. Julia Simon-Kerr from the University of Connecticut discusses the masking of witnesses in the courtroom during the COVID-19 pandemic and the implications masking might have on the Confrontation Clause and the way the legal system views the importance of demeanor.

Confronting Memory Loss. Paul Rothstein from Georgetown discusses the problems that a witness's memory loss presents for the Confrontation Clause, and the factors that a future Supreme Court might use to address this question.

The Evidence Rules that Convict the Innocent. Jeff Bellin from William & Mary uses the Innocent Movement that the wrongful convictions it has uncovered to re-evaluate the rules of evidence.

Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts. Tess Neal from Arizona State University talks about the validity of psychological assessment tools and the willingness of attorneys and courts to scrutinize them.

The Incomplete Rule of Completeness. Louisa Heiny from the University of Utah talks about the tension between Federal Rule of Evidence 106 and the common law Rule of Completeness that it sought to replace.

Litigation Science After the Knowledge Crisis. Edith Beerdsen from NYU talks about the replicability crisis in science and how courts can use the lessons learned from it to improve scientific evidence.

Bad Character, Tragic Errors and Deep Ignorance. Liat Levanon from King's College London makes an ethical and aesthetic argument against the use of character evidence, suggesting that wrongful convictions of reformed defendants constitute acutely tragic errors.

Rape Accusations and the Preponderance of Evidence. Georgi Gardiner from the University of Tennessee talks about sexual misconduct allegations and discusses how the classic “he said, she said” scenario paradoxically should satisfy and SHOULD NOT satisfy the preponderance standard of proof.

Preferences for Criminal Justice Error Types. Yehonatan Givati discusses whether we all actually think it better for ten (or even one) guilty to go free than to convict one innocent, and why some of us might think differently.

Secret Conviction Programs. Meghan Ryan from SMU Dedman School of Law talks about convictions based on evidence analyzed or created by secret algorithms or computer programs unavailable in discovery.

Profile Evidence, Fairness and the Risks of Mistaken Convictions. Marcello DiBello from the City University of New York provides a new take on why profile evidence might be objectionable, focusing on the risk of false positives.

The Law & Politics of Cyberattack Attribution. Kristen Eichensehr from UCLA School of Law talks about the standards used to attribute cyberattacks.

Reputation vs. Opinion. Bobby Harges from Loyola University New Orleans considers Louisiana’s requirement that character evidence be presented through reputation only and not through opinion testimony.