JURIST - Tillers on Evidence

JURIST >> OPINION >> Blogs >> Tillers on Evidence

—————————————————————————————
Professor Peter Tillers of Cardozo Law School in New York blogs for JURIST on the latest evidence issues...
—————————————————————————————

Monday, May 19, 2003

Evidence Exam: Try Your Hand -- Risk-Free!

In my recent Evidence exam I returned to some of my favorite topics: impeachment, character evidence, constitutional right(s) of criminal defendants to adduce evidence and attack adverse evidence, and similar matters. I gave my Evidence students the take-home question found below. Try your hand! I will not question or criticize -- because I already have my hands full with the exam answers (and other materials) that I now have to grade.

Question

The State of Blackacre indicts Albert Accused. It charges him with the robbery and rape of Vila Victim on January 1, 2003. Albert Accused pleads not guilty.

At trial Vila testifies that Albert robbed and raped her on January 1, 2003.

During cross-examination Albert's counsel asks Vila if it isn't true that she suffers from delusions. Vila replies, "No."

Albert’s counsel also asks Vila, “Aren’t your charges against Albert a tissue of lies?” Vila replies, “No.”

Later in the trial Albert's counsel offers to have a social psychologist testify that Vila is a psychotic paranoid schizophrenic who suffers from delusions and makes false statements to relieve social stress.

The prosecutor objects to this proffered testimony. Albert's counsel argues that the testimony of the social psychologist is admissible to impeach Vila's credibility as a witness.

You are the trial judge's law clerk. Prepare a memorandum for the trial judge assessing the admissibility of the testimony of the social psychologist.

Posted by Peter Tillers at 12:46 PM
| #

Archive of Tillers on Evidence

Would you like to blog for JURIST? JURIST is currently seeking law professors interested in voicing opinions and views in specific subject areas on a regular basis. E-mail JURIST@law.pitt.edu

JURIST BLOGGER

Professor Peter Tillers

"I have practiced a little bit of law -- I worked as a litigator, once in California and once in Texas -- but for most of my professional life I have studied and taught law.

In the early part of my academic career I dabbled in philosophy, particularly the philosophies of Kant and Hegel. But as I matured, I came to my senses. This explains why during the last 15 years I have devoted much more attention to evidence, inference, and proof in litigation than to German Idealism and similar matters. However, I did not succeed in completely obliterating the influence of philosophy and epistemology on my thinking. Thus, in my effort to understand and explain the process of proof in litigation, I have devoted a great deal of attention to matters such as probability theory and theories of evidence, inference, induction, and proof.

Peter Tillers is Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University. He revised volumes 1 &1A of Wigmore on Evidence (1983) and is the author of Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence (1988; with E. Green).