Excited Utterance

Rape Shield Evidence and the Hierarchy of Impeachment. Rosanna Cavallaro from Suffolk University discusses how current Rape Shield jurisprudence inappropriately preferences certain types of impeachment over others.

Eyewitness Identifications and the Problematics of Blackstonian Reform of the Criminal Law. Larry Rosenthal from Chapman University challenges the idea of using prophylactic rules to prevent the admission of potentially unreliable eyewitness identification evidence.

Blind Testing: Lessons from Houston. Nicole Casarez from the University of St. Thomas describes the experience of the Houston Forensic Science Center in implementing blinding testing, and what its success might mean for the broader forensics community.

How Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures Matters. Bernard Chao looks into Rule 407’s bar on subsequent remedial measures (SRMs). What does evidence of SRMs do to a defendant’s case, and are jury instructions limiting the use of SRMs effective at stemming their prejudicial effects?

Brain-Based Memory Detection. Emily Murphy from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law discusses whether technologies for detecting brain activity can actually help verify witness memories and what implications these technologies might have for the law.

Naked Statistical Evidence and the Futility of Lawful Conduct. Christian Dahlman from Lund University in Sweden (with guest host Alex Nunn) offers an explanation of the so-called proof paradoxes based on incentives and causal direction.

Towards a Continuous Burden of Proof. Mark Spottswood considers replacing our traditional, dichotomous burden of proof based on thresholds with a continuous one that would award greater damages with greater factfinder certainty.

Going Ballistic. Binyamin Blum from the University of California at Hastings discusses the origins of ballistics identification under British colonialism in Egypt during the 1920s.

Experts in the Jury Room. Kristin Liska (Stanford) considers how the legal system should handle expert jurors who introduce untested specialized knowledge into the deliberation room.

Brain-Computer Interfaces and the Law. Jessica Haushalter (Vanderbilt) discusses her student note on brain scanning technology and the challenges it faces in the courtroom.

Problems with Juror Bias in Viewing Body-Camera Video Evidence. Morgan Birck (Michigan) talks about her student note arguing why police body camera footage is not living up to its potential in the courtroom.

Expanding Pena-Rodriguez to Protect Criminal Defendants from Explicit Gender Animus. Katie Hicks (University of Arkansas School of Law) joins the podcast to advocate in favor of expanding Pena-Rodriguez to combat gender-based animus.

Why Open Science Matters to Factfinding in Courts. Jason Chin from the University of Queensland (Australia) discusses how the open science movement in the scientific community could help address the expert reliability problem in law.

A Right to Prove Innocence After Pleading Guilty. Colin Miller from the University of South Carolina argues that defendants who plead guilty should retain a right to prove their innocence under certain cirumstances.

Fillers, Contextual Bias, and Forensic Comparisons. Adele Quigley-McBride from Iowa State University discusses how the use of fillers might help neutralize the biasing effect that contextual information has on forensic comparisons.

Evidentiary Fringes. John Leubsdorf from Rutgers Law School talks about evidentiary rules and concepts often neglected because they were not codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence, such as corroboration rules.

Incredible Women. Deborah Tuerkheimer from Northwestern discusses the “credibility discount” – originally formally, now in practice -- that the legal system has imposed on victims of sexual violence, why it is a problem, and what can be done about it.

The Paradoxes of Legal Proof. Michael Pardo from the University of Alabama, with guest host Alex Nunn, gives an overview of the proof paradoxes and explains why they are more than just academic constructs.

Oral Testimony in Chinese Criminal Trials. Zhuhao Wang from China University of Political Science and Law discusses China’s attempt to introduce live testimony in Chinese criminal proceedings and the obstacles it faces.

Goldilocks and the Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions. Liesa Richter from the University of Oklahoma discusses hearsay rule reform, proposing that we extend the trustworthiness exception in the business record exception to other Rule 803 exceptions.

Incentives, Lies, and Disclosure. Christopher Robertson from the University of Arizona questions our tradition of offering inducements to prosecution witnesses and discusses some recent informative psychological studies.

A Theory of Facts and Circumstances. Andrew Hayashi from the University of Virginia School of Law discusses how the law should provide guidance on the kinds of facts and circumstances that factfinders should use to make inferences.

Rethinking Rule 408. Richard Reuben from the University of Missouri School of Law proposes revising Rule 408 to address the needs of modern settlement discussions.

Examples and Exceptions Under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Dora Klein from St. Mary's University School of Law explores the confusion created the examples offered in the text of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The Unrealized Promise of Forensic Science. James Anderson explores why the legal system does not produce as much forensic evidence as it perhaps should.