My new paper, The Article III Factfinding Power (forthcoming in the Minnesota Law Review), is now up on SSRN. I'd welcome your thoughts and comments as I continue to improve the piece!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
I'm honored to be publishing this piece with Vanderbilt Psych Prof Sarah Brown-Schmidt in volume 112 of the Virginia Law Review. In this empirical evidence law and cognitive science article, we identify the risks posed by "hear-witnesses" who inaccurately recall and recount statements at trial.
There's been so much fantastic Evidence scholarship lately. Add this to the list!
Congrats Sue! Can't wait to read this, it looks awesome.
Amazing! I'm just now seeing this, and it looks great. Is this what you'll be presenting at ESW?
Happy to share that Developmental Evidence Rules is forthcoming in the California Law Review! What would it mean to take childhood seriously in evidence law? This article takes up that question.
Congrats Greer!
What an incredible gift from a student! π
At Vandy, back in 2016, we had a group of about 10 busy 2Ls sifting through 4,000 articles in the spring cycle, and it was all-consuming work then. I canβt imagine what the submission numbers are now, even as VLRβs articles committee is the same size.
Quite literally, yes! Fortunately, though, splitting them ended up working really well, since the historical, diagnostic claim I make in (what's become) the Notre Dame paper is independent of my normative constitutional argument in the Minnesota piece. I'll be sure to share once SSRN lets me...
Thanks Asees!
Thanks so much!
Iβll post both papers once SSRN actually approves them (ugh), but feel free to reach out in the interim to get a copy. I welcome your comments! (4/4)
βThe Article III Factfinding Powerβ considers the constitutional dimensions of that shift. It argues that, as factfinding becomes decentralized, federal courts nonetheless retain the duty to preserve an essential baseline of epistemic legitimacy in the factfinding that grounds their judgments. (3/4)
βFactfinding Revolutions" traces the rise and fall of historical factfinding regimes to identify a recurring structure of regime collapse. The Article then uses that framework to exposit a modern factfinding revolution, which is ushering in a new age of adjudicatory decentralization. (2/4)
Excited to share two projects, forthcoming in the Minnesota Law Review and the Notre Dame Law Review, about federal courtsβ increasing reliance on βexternalβ factfinding of epistemically dubious provenance. (1/4)
Of course! Tbh, I don't really get why his email is so vague (it's a cool idea, but not a state secret). Maybe it's the publisher pushing NDAs.
Alas, though, your broader point stands. I have no doubt someone is going to use AI for grading, and predictably disastrous consequences will ensue.
As an aside, however, really enjoyed the article @msmith750.bsky.social!
I had an amazing time chatting with @aseesbhasin.bsky.social and Jasmine Gonzales Rose about their fantastic new article, "Antiracist Expert Evidence," which was recently published in the @yalelawjournal.bsky.social. Listen below!
excitedutterance.com/listen/2026/...
Two weeks ago, I chatted with said individual (no NDA!), and his project, which I assume is the same one referenced in his email, wasn't AI-related. Rather, it was basically a new way to "test" rules of evidence. As in, not essay or MC. A company bought the rights, which perhaps explains the NDA?
And, to clarify, I didn't have to sign an NDA!
Two weeks ago, I chatted with the individual in question, and his project (which I assume is the same one referenced in his email) wasn't AI-related. Rather, it was basically a new way to "test" rules of evidence (as in, not essay or MC). A company bought the rights, which perhaps explains the NDA?
Amazing news! Congrats Nila, so well deserved.
Thrilled to share that πΊπ’πππ‘ ππ¦ ππππππ‘βπππ has found a home with the Yale Law Journal. This piece examines parental liability regimes and parental rights, and how they are connected by a shared logic that harms children and families. Thank you to all those who read drafts and offered feedback!
Itβs day 5 of being snowed in, and Iβve officially hit the βexplain the character evidence prohibitionβ phase of trying anything and everything to keep my kids entertained.
(And, in case youβre wondering, they think law students *always* have to keep their hands raised.)
Texasβs highest court holds that the Confrontation Clause required witnesses to testify unmasked during the Covid pandemic so the jury could evaluate their demeanor and credibility. And so regrettably, evidence lawβs predilection for βfolk psychologyβ marches on.
www.nunn.law/blog/covid-c...
After surveying the divergent perspectives of all nine justices, I came to two conclusions.
First, the era of reliability principles in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence is well and trial over.
Second, the post-Crawford primary purpose test is safe, but for differing reasons.
Justices Alito and Gorsuch recently called for βreconsiderationβ of Crawford v. Washington, signaling potential upheaval for Confrontation Clause jurisprudence.
Will the Court jettison more settled doctrine? In my new blog post, I offer a prediction.
nunn.law/blog/revisit...
Today's blog post: "Supreme Court of Kentucky Finds Raw, Machine-Extracted Data Does Not Implicate the Confrontation Clause": www.evidenceprofblog.com
Itβs easy to overlook Rule 401, but its low bar for relevance reflects a hugely consequential policy choice regarding how to best allocate decisionmaking power between judge, jury, and rulemakers.
My thoughts on @aseesbhasin.bsky.socialβs engaging new article:
nunn.law/blog/asees-b...
