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.