The special issue celebrates the 10th Anniversary of ICE by featuring a number of essays on important evidentiary developments from a comparative perspective in the period since ICE was established. The Table of Contents and brief descriptions of the articles are below.
Readers can access all the articles at no charge.
• Founding editors Craig R. Callen, Sean Doran, and John D. Jackson reflect briefly upon the establishment of ICE and how it has developed in the previous ten years. "Evidence during the Ten Years of ICE"
• Erica Beecher-Monas of Wayne State University discusses the increasingly antithetical approach to expert testimony by courts, and how this is imposing unacceptable costs on the entire justice system. "Paradoxical Validity Determinations: A Decade of Antithetical Approaches to Admissibility of Expert Evidence”
• Andrew Roberts of University of Warwick provides a critical analysis of some of the more notable procedural developments relating to eyewitness identification evidence over the past decade. "Eyewitness Identification Evidence: Procedural Developments and the Ends of Adjudicative Accuracy"
• Pamela J. Schwikkard of University of Cape Town looks at the status and application of the right to remain silent in a number of common law jurisdictions, favoring the rationale that this right assists in preventing the abuse of public power. “The Muddle of Silence”
• Roger W. Kirst of University of Nebraska College of Law describes how confrontation doctrine was changed in the last decade by Crawford and the Court's subsequent decisions in Davis v. Washington and Giles v. California. He goes on to discuss other confrontation issues the Supreme Court will face in future cases. “A Decade of Change in Sixth Amendment Confrontation Doctrine”
• Myrna S. Raeder of Southwestern Law School reviews the history of advocacy on behalf of adult and child female victims of rape and other sexual assaults, focusing on both long term and short term trends. “Litigating Sex Crimes in the United States: Has the Last Decade Made Any Difference?”
• Johannes F. Nijboer of University of Leiden discusses three dimensions of generality in evidence and procedure. He examines the trend across disciplines and professions, national boundaries, and with respect to specific crimes. “Current Issues in Evidence and Procedure - Comparative Comments from a Continental Perspective”
PT: In this blog I have occasionally sermonized about the importance of imaginative and entrepreneurial legal scholarship. International Commentary on Evidence is a perfect example of what I have in mind.
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law