Fiddling While Rome Burns: The Story of the Federal Rules and Experts

It is a great privilege and honor to be asked to participate in even a small way in the work of the rules advisory process. The topic today is important, and there is a lot of brain power in the room, so much that we may be able to solve some of the problems posed by forensics. Knowledge is certainly advancing, and generally reliable consensus on some of the issues plaguing the use of forensic experts at trial may be decided in the sense that any issue is decided in a typical scientific field. More or less definitely resolving scientific controversies will have two important consequences in the real world. First, certain issues will not really be the subject of litigation, notwithstanding the conventional but false belief that there can be no directed verdicts, even partial directed verdicts, in criminal cases. In fact, certain issues will already have been decided, such as many issues concerning the scientific foundations of DNA testing. Second, certain other issues will continue to be the foundation upon which qualified experts offer opposing opinions

Evidentiary Problems in—And Solutions For—the Uniform Commercial Code

The Uniform Commercial Code does not offer a systematic approach to the rules governing the evidentiary relationships of parties to commercial litigation. In this article, Professors Allen and Hillman present a general analytical approach to proof rules, highlight the shortcomings of the Code\u27s evidentiary provisions, and discuss the inevitable confusion in the case law construing the Code. They propose an amendment to the Code designed to clarify and improve the Code approach