Functions of Judge and Jury in the Determination of Preliminary Questions of Fact

Morgan, Edmund M.

doi:10.2307/1330083

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In law, the judge is supposed to use the trial rules to make such determinations (Morgan 1929). But there are serious theoretical problems in applying rules, like the Federal Rules of Evidence, to make such determinations.…”

Section: An Automated System For Argument Invention 445mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures*

Walton¹

2005

Ratio Juris

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. A heuristic search procedure for inventing legal arguments is built on two tools already widely in use in argumentation. Argumentation schemes are forms of argument representing premise-conclusion and inference structures of common types of arguments. Schemes especially useful in law represent defeasible arguments, like argument from expert opinion. Argument diagramming is a visualization tool used to display a chain of connected arguments linked together. One such tool, Araucaria, available free at http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk/, helps a user display an argument on the computer screen as an inverted tree structure with an ultimate conclusion as the root of the tree. These argumentation tools are applicable to analyzing a mass of evidence in a case at trial, in a manner already known in law using heuristic methods (Schum 1994) and Wigmore diagrams (Wigmore 1931). In this paper it is shown how they can be automated and applied to the task of inventing legal arguments. One important application is to proof construction in trial preparation (Palmer 2003).

show abstract

Section: An Automated System For Argument Invention 445mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures*

Walton¹

2005

Ratio Juris

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The utility of the concept of conditional relevance, as well as the difficulties of the concept as expressed under the existing Federal Rules, has been the subject of considerable discussion and debate among evidence scholars (e.g., Friedman, 1994Friedman, , 1995Morgan, 1929;Nance, 1990Nance, , 1995Tillers, 1994). Among the criticisms of the current Rule 104 (b) is the fact that it is stated in absolute terms-i.e., that the evidence is relevant when a particular additional fact is true, but irrelevant when it is not (e.g., Friedman, 1994).…”

Section: The Interdependence Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Empirical Approach to Evidentiary Ruling.

Davis¹,

Follette²

2003

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper responds to criticisms/misconstruals of our measure of the maximum probative value of evidence (D. Davis & W. C. Follette, 2002), and our conclusions regarding the potentially prejudicial role of "intuitive profiling" evidence, including motive. We argue that R. D. Friedman and R. C. Park's (2003) criticisms and example cases are largely based on inappropriate violation of the presumption of innocence. Further, we address the merits of our absolute difference measure of probative value versus those of the Bayesian likelihood ratio championed by D. H. Kaye and J. J. Koehler (2003). We recommend methods for presentation of measures of evidence utility that convey complexities of interdependence between new and existing evidence. Finally, we propose a "probable cause" standard for admission of potentially prejudicial evidence, dictating that admissibility of such evidence should be contingent upon other substantial evidence of guilt.

show abstract

Authenticating ‘Things’ in English Law: Principles for Adducing Tangible Evidence in Common Law Jury Trials

Pattenden

2008

The International Journal of Evidence & Proof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the true nature of authentication of tangible evidence in English law and kindred jurisdictions. It first identifies general principles governing the respective roles of judge and jury in the authentication of tangible evidence embedded within the case law of England and Wales. Those principles are then compared and contrasted to the rules governing authentication of evidence under the US Federal Rules of Evidence. Finally, general principles of authentication in English law are examined in relation to the authentication of forensic science evidence; film, video, photographs and sound recordings; private documents; computer output; and recorded confessions.

show abstract

Functions of Judge and Jury in the Determination of Preliminary Questions of Fact

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures*

An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures*

Toward an Empirical Approach to Evidentiary Ruling.

Authenticating ‘Things’ in English Law: Principles for Adducing Tangible Evidence in Common Law Jury Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About