Excited Utterance

The Authentication Illusion. Justin Sevier from Florida State University discusses new psychological research investigating whether legal actors are up to the task of authentication in an era of deepfake images, audio, video, and documents.

Testimonial Gossip. Erin Sheley from the University of San Diego argues that under the Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Arizona, offering reputational character evidence against the accused in criminal cases may violate the Confrontation Clause.

Trial by Character. Hillel Bavli from Southern Methodist University discusses how some courts misinterpret the "other purposes" discussed in Rule 404(b)(2) as true exceptions, causing an erosion of the well-accepted rule against character or propensity evidence.

The Multidimensions of AI Chatbots as Evidence. Laura Ginsberg Abelson from Southern Methodist University discusses how AI chatbot conversations are increasingly finding their way into court, and why some of those conversations may be deserving of evidentiary protection.

The Accused Speaks. Laurent Sacharoff from Hofstra University uncovers the original meaning of the "right to be heard," a historical constitutional right to give unsworn statements not subject to cross-examination originally granted to criminal defendants in 37 state constitutions.

The Overlooked Witness Memory Risk. Sue Provenzano from Georgia State University and Sarah Brown-Schmidt from Vanderbilt University discuss the problem of “hear-witnesses,” witnesses who report about what was previously said, and how evidence law does not adequately account for their accuracy risks.

Opinion Surveys Across the Civil-Criminal Divide. Kay Levine from Emory University discusses the uses of opinion survey evidence, how its admissibility is inconsistent between civil and criminal contexts, and perhaps why the divide exists.

AI-Enhanced Evidence Law. Mary Fan from the University of Washington discusses the challenges of AI-enhanced evidence in the courtroom, how to ensure its reliability, and concerns about disparities between prosecution-offered and defense-offered AI-enhanced evidence.

Law Enforcement Privilege. Rebecca Wexler from Columbia Law School discusses the privilege governing police investigative methods, the reasons for the privilege, as well as its costs to transparency and the ability to regulate police conduct in accord with the Fourth Amendment.

Strategy for Strategy's Sake. Edith Beerdsen from Temple University asks whether strategic or "sporting" behavior has any place in a system of legal proof, and when being clever goes too far.

Antiracist Expert Evidence. Asess Bhasin from the University of Maryland and Jasmine Gonzales Rose from Boston University discuss the ways in which expert evidence can address racism and racial discrimination in our system of evidence and proof.

Children and the Making of Modern Evidence Law. Laura Savarese from Michigan State University discusses the role of children’s testimony and nineteenth-century child protection laws in the development of the law of evidence.

The Evidentiary Use and Misuse of Forensic Musicology in Copyright Litigation. Fred Yen from Boston College discusses the use of musicology experts in copyright litigation and what they should and should not be permitted to testify about.

Defending Due Process. Brandon Garrett from Duke University discusses his new book, Defending Due Process: Why Fairness Matters in a Polarized World.

Internet Technology Companies as Evidence Intermediaries. Yan Fang discusses the modern role of internet technology companies as significant repositories of evidence and how these companies fulfill their legal obligations.

Verdict Format on Trial. Avani Sood from NYU discusses the use of special verdicts in criminal cases, and why perhaps we should favor them instead of the traditional general verdict.

The Three-Verdict Problem. Jack Whiteley from the University of Minnesota discusses the Scottish tripartite system of jury verdicts, featuring verdicts of guilty, not guilty, and not proven.

Dan Medwed from Northeastern University discusses the past, present, and future of Chambers v. Mississippi and the right to present a defense.

Placebo Trials. Hayley Stillwell from the University of Oklahoma proposes the use of "placebo trials," test trials in which the alleged defendant is known to be innocent, to learn about jury dynamics and the empirical consequences of evidentiary rules.

Value Judgments and the Fact-Law Distinction. Stephen Simon from the University of Richmond offers a new perspective on the time-honored law-fact distinction.

In Defense of Factual Precedents. Tomer Kenneth from the University of Southern California discusses the evidentiary problem of general facts that are applicable across multiple cases, and whether there should be governed by doctrines akin to precedent.

The Limits and Costs of Cross-Examination. Lisa Kern Griffin from Duke University considers the costs of our excessive devotion to and dependence on cross-examination as our chief mechanism for ensuring accuracy in factfinding.

Minimal Rationality and the Law of Evidence. Ron Allen from Northwestern University argues that the goal of the law of evidence is to ensure minimal, not maximal, rationality in our adjudicative processes.

The Lawyer, the Witch, and the Witness. Trace Maddox from NYU School of Law discusses the witchcraft trials in sixteenth to eighteenth-century England, and how contrary to popular belief, they largely adhered to standard procedural and evidentiary rules at the time. His historical findings thus raise interesting questions about the nature of a fair and just adjudicatory system.

The Surprising Story of Smith v. Rapid Transit. Michael Risinger from Seton Hall University recounts his historical research into the famous case of Smith v. Rapid Transit, the case which ultimately spawned the "Blue Bus" hypothetical on statistical proof.