Placebo Trials. Hayley Stillwell from the University of Oklahoma proposes the use of "placebo trials," test trials in which the alleged defendant is known to be innocent, to learn about jury dynamics and the empirical consequences of evidentiary rules.

Value Judgments and the Fact-Law Distinction. Stephen Simon from the University of Richmond offers a new perspective on the time-honored law-fact distinction.

In Defense of Factual Precedents. Tomer Kenneth from the University of Southern California discusses the evidentiary problem of general facts that are applicable across multiple cases, and whether there should be governed by doctrines akin to precedent.

The Limits and Costs of Cross-Examination. Lisa Kern Griffin from Duke University considers the costs of our excessive devotion to and dependence on cross-examination as our chief mechanism for ensuring accuracy in factfinding.

Minimal Rationality and the Law of Evidence. Ron Allen from Northwestern University argues that the goal of the law of evidence is to ensure minimal, not maximal, rationality in our adjudicative processes.

The Lawyer, the Witch, and the Witness. Trace Maddox from NYU School of Law discusses the witchcraft trials in sixteenth to eighteenth-century England, and how contrary to popular belief, they largely adhered to standard procedural and evidentiary rules at the time. His historical findings thus raise interesting questions about the nature of a fair and just adjudicatory system.

The Surprising Story of Smith v. Rapid Transit. Michael Risinger from Seton Hall University recounts his historical research into the famous case of Smith v. Rapid Transit, the case which ultimately spawned the "Blue Bus" hypothetical on statistical proof.

Judges Should Be Discerning Consensus, Not Evaluating Scientific Expertise. Dave Caudill from Villanova critiques and improves upon Ed Cheng's proposal to have courts defer to expert consensus rather than screening expert evidence through Daubert. The episode features some guest concluding remarks from Ed Cheng.

A Critical Analysis of Rap Shield Laws. Alexa Perez from Drake University examines how rap lyrics are handled by existing evidence rules and whether they should be the subject of special "rap shield" evidentiary rules.

Parent-Child Privilege as Resistance. Nila Bala from the University of California Davis discusses why there should be greater adoption of a parent-child privilege, and how it could be an important tool for resisting injustice and government overreaching.

A Proposal to Replace the Hearsay Rules. Rich Friedman from the University of Michigan offers a proposal to radically simplify and rationalize our much-maligned hearsay rule along Confrontation lines.

The Neuroscience of the Present Sense Impression. Chris Sundby from Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, P.A. discusses his experiments probing the neuroscientific and psychological bases of the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.

Confession and Confrontation. Will Ortman from Wayne State University discusses how the modern Confrontation Clause might be used to help improve the reliabilty of defendant confessions.

Of Bass Notes and Base Rates. Rebecca Tushnet from Harvard Law School discusses the base rate problems that surface in the expert testimony common in music copyright litigation.

Expert Framework Evidence. Teneille Brown from the University of Utah and Emily Murphy from UC Law San Francisco discuss their amicus brief in Diaz v. United States, to be argued before the Supreme Court on March 19, 2024. The case involves (and the episode explores) the problem of framework evidence, first described by John Monahan and Laurens Walker, and how it relates to Federal Rule of Evidence 704, which abolishes the ultimate issue rule, except for cases involving mental states.

Evidence Law's Blind Spots. Jamie Macleod from Brooklyn Law School argues, among other things, that evidence law needs to worry as much about what juries do in the absence of certain evidence as in the presence of it. He discusses new empirical work showing some troubling racial disparities when mock jurors are presented with so-called sanitized evidence, such as when the fact of prior convictions is revealed without specific details.

Evidence Rules for Decarceration. Erin Collins from the University of Richmond explores how the evidentiary rules -- especially the character rules -- contribute to mass incarceration, and how evidence should reorient itself more toward substantive outcomes than away from just accuracy. This episode was recorded live at a Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal symposium at UConn School of Law.

A Theory for Evaluating Evidence Against the Standard of Proof. Kevin Clermont from Cornell Law School argues that existing probabilistic models of the proof process are incomplete and summarizes his proposal -- based on a multivalent model -- to conceptualize legal proof.

Experts and the Attorney-Client Privilege. Nicholas Hakun from Temple University and Wilson Sonsini discusses whether the attorney-client privilege should extend to experts used by attorneys and their clients.

Ending Manner-of-Death Testimony.