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.

The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law. Bobbie Spellman from the University of Virginia discusses her new book with Michael Saks reviewing the psychological literature relevant to our evidentiary rules.

Computer Source Code. Ed Imwinkelried from UC Davis discusses the need for access to automated forensic tools, either for validation testing or for inquiries into the underlying source code.

Questioning Child Witnesses. Tom Lyon from USC Gould School of Law discusses some new techniques for talking to child witnesses, including one technique that seems to increase sensitivity without creating additional false positives.

New Evidence About Circumstantial Evidence. Eyal Zamir from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem discusses some new psychological studies about the anti-inference bias, which causes us to prefer direct evidence over circumstantial evidence in the proof process.

Reclaiming the Importance of the Defendant's Testimony. Anna Roberts from Seattle University discusses the use of a defendant's prior convictions to establish his character for untruthfulness under Rule 609.