Search for: "Edward Imwinkelried"
Results 1 - 20
of 44
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2023, 12:10 pm
Imwinkelried, Daniel D. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 8:17 am
S. 153, 169 (citing Rules 701 to 705); see also Edward J. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 12:46 pm
Schinasi, and Edward J. [read post]
7 Jan 2021, 7:34 am
The 6th edition of Scientific Evidence (2020) by Paul Gianelli, Edward Imwinkelried, Andrea Roth, et al. is now available on LexisNexis Digital Library. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 8:46 am
., Edward A. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 7:32 am
Imwinkelried is now available on LexisNexis Digital Library. [read post]
2 May 2019, 10:44 am
., “Response to Edward J. [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 4:36 pm
Edward J. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 6:56 pm
Joanna Gin and Edward J. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 12:18 pm
Evidentiary Foundations, Tenth Edition provides sample lines of questioning that demonstrate how to lay the foundation for admitting various kinds of evidence. [read post]
1 Feb 2018, 5:00 pm
Edward J. [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 11:36 am
In that vein, here are several new academic analyses approaching the question from different angles:Paul Giannelli, "Forensic Science: Daubert's Failure"Brandon Garrett, Gregory Mitchell, "The Proficiency of Experts"Edward Imwinkelried, "The Best Insurance Against Miscarriages of Justice Caused by Junk Science: An Admissibility Test That Is Scientifically and Legally Sound"I already printed out Giannelli's piece; these get added to… [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 5:08 am
Edward J. [read post]
17 Sep 2017, 6:20 am
After several months of working out the kinks in a soft launch, Just Liberty's Reasonably Suspicious podcast now is up and running on numerous platforms - iTunes, Google Play, YouTube, SoundCloud, etc.. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 2:51 pm
Edward J. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 4:02 pm
Edward J. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 12:06 pm
What happens when Prosecutors use the testimony of a cop, with no testimony from a laboratory to identify the drug, Marijuana / Cannabis? [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 4:38 pm
Edward J. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 12:33 pm
Jason Luu and Edward J. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 5:29 am
No serious observer or scholar of the law of evidence can deny that the lower federal courts have applied Daubert and its progeny, and the revised Federal Rule of Evidence 702, inconstantly and inconsistently, in their decisions to admit or exclude proffered expert witness opinion testimony. [read post]
