Excited Utterance

Will the Jury System Survive the Peña-Rodriguez Exception to Rule 606(b)? Taurus Myhand from the University of Alabama asks that very question in this episode of Excited Utterance.

The Res Gestae Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay. Alex Nunn interviews Mara Afzali of Albany Law School and Bond, Schoeneck & King as she presents her work about the Res Gestae exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The Proficiency of Experts. Brandon Garrett from the UVA School of Law argues that expert qualification should depend on expert performance and proficiency testing, rather than the traditional markers of credentials and experience.

Disgust Reactions to Gruesome Photographs. Jessica Salerno from ASU investigates the prejudicial effect of gory photographs and whether color photographs (as opposed to black and white) make a difference.

The Impact of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. Catherine Bonventre from Guilford College discusses the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez-Diaz had on the efficiency and operation of crime laboratories.

Evaluating Negative Forensic Evidence. Bill Thompson from University of California Irvine discusses how jurors evaluate the absence of forensic evidence.

Forensic Linguistics. Robert Leonard from Hofstra University discusses the use of linguistics for forensic purposes.

Law and the Epistemology of Disagreement. Alex Stein from Brooklyn Law School talks about the epistemological problems created when individual jurors disagree about the reasons underlying their verdict.

The Reliability of Present Sense Impression Hearsay Evidence. Timothy Lau discusses the empirical basis of the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.

Bias, Pretrial Publicity, and Deliberation. Christine Ruva from the University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee Department of Psychology explores how deliberations affect the biasing effects of pre-trial publicity on jurors.

Evaluating Credibility Using Prior Convictions. Ric Simmons from Ohio State University reports on a new empirical study of how prior convictions under Rule 609 are treated by judges and potential jurors.

Popularizing Hearsay. Justin Sevier from Florida State University College of Law argues for a hearsay rule based not on accuracy, but on procedural dignity and legitimacy interests, and offers new empirical evidence supporting his view.

Recantations and the Perjury Sword. Russell Covey from Georgia State University tackles the double-edged nature of perjury, and how it can be better used to promote accurate results.

Leveraging Surprise. Michael Risinger from Seton Hall proposes using surprise as a device to explain the burden of proof and looks back on his career in evidence.

When Self-Report Trumps Science. Sara Appleby from Mercer University investigates the surprising behavior of some factfinders when confronted with a (recanted) confession and exculpatory DNA.

Expertise on Trial. James Dillon from Columbia Law School tackles the age-old question of how the legal system can make decisions involving specialized knowledge when legal actors lack expertise.

The Judicial Presumption of Police Expertise. Anna Lvovsky from Harvard Law School discusses how police expertise came to be accepted by courts, and how this change, which started in evidence law, ultimately influenced the course of criminal procedure.

Invisible Error. Cassandra Burke Robertson from Case Western Reserve University School of Law explores how judges check the jury’s application of the burden of proof, specifically through grants of new trial.

Experiencing Other Minds in the Courtroom. Neal Feigenson from Quinnipiac University explores the use of simulations in the courtroom to aid the factfinder in understanding a party’s subjective experience.

Exorcising the Clergy Privilege. Christine Bartholomew from SUNY Buffalo Law School talks about the clergy privilege and how its coverage and protection have declined in practice due to the actions of courts and clergy members themselves.

Discovering Forensic Fraud. Jennifer Oliva discusses the “Daubert gap” between criminal and civil trials, and how pre-trial disclosure might be the way to address faulty forensic science.

The Silence Penalty. Jeffrey Bellin from William & Mary Law School discusses his new mock juror study on the empirical penalty criminal defendants receive for either remaining silent or having prior convictions.

Bringing Demonstrative Evidence in From the Cold. Maureen Howard from the University of Washington discusses the problem of demonstrative evidence and the confusion and controversy over how to best regulate it.

The Vaccine Court. Anna Kirkland from the University of Michigan looks at the Vaccine Court and how it handles evidence and makes decisions at the intersection of law and science.

Rape, Truth, and Hearsay. Bennett Capers from Brooklyn Law School discusses the problems of applying the Rape Shield rule in today’s world, and offers a new reinterpretation of the rule focused on statements used for the truth of the matter asserted.