The use of sampled evidence in mass tort cases is at the crossroads. In McLaughlin v. Phillip Morris, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York certified a nationwide class action on behalf of an estimated 50 million "light" cigarette smokers. In the face of the overwhelming cost of gathering evidence from tens of millions of plaintiff class members, he announced a dramatic trial plan to completely abandon individualized adjudication in favor of aggregate factual determinations based on evidence from statistical samples. The central issue in the interlocutory appeal now before the Second Circuit is the legality of statistical sampling. This Article strenuously defends Judge Weinstein's strategy of relying on evidence produced through proven methods of sampling. Such an aggregate strategy is not only much more cost-effective than case-by-case evidence gathering, it is also much more likely to arrive at an accurate determination of damages. By laying out a comprehensive proposal for the use of sampled evidence in litigation, the authors hope to hasten the day when legal decision makers finally accept a practice than has been a hallmark of scientific decision making for the past sixty years.
Evidence law controls what information will be admissible in court and when, how, and by whom it may be presented. It shapes not only the trial...
Three established torts require the defendant’s behavior to be “offensive” or “highly offensive” in order to be actionable: offensive battery, public...
This casebook aspires to help students understand and think systematically about the techniques of statutory interpretation. It blends exposition with...
Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like...
On January 1, 2022, the most radical change to the American jury in at least thirty-five years occurred in Arizona: peremptory strikes, long a feature...
It has long been said that the common law "works itself pure" But in the law of torts, not always. This Article reveals and analyzes the...
The idea of institutionalism figures prominently in today’s debates about the role of federal courts in American democracy. For example, Chief Justice...
How should judges decide hard cases involving rights conflicts? Standard debates about this question are usually framed in jurisprudential terms...
Long lines inside Bodo’s Bagels, congestion on Emmet Street and a seemingly endless stream of runners and scooters zooming past your car in early...
Berryessa et al. (2022) consider how prior experience as a criminal prosecutor may influence judicial behaviour, but their concerns about prior...
Forensic evidence has become a common tool in police investigations and a familiar form of evidence at trial. Forensic scientists are trained to...
A federal grand jury in Florida indicted former President Donald Trump on June 8, 2023, on multiple criminal charges related to classified documents...
In our increasingly polarized society, claims that prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary are more common...
The lawyer-client relationship is pivotal in providing access to courts. This paper presents results from a large-scale field experiment exploring how...
The question whether the term “set aside” in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes a federal court to vacate a rule universally—as opposed...
Contract law has one overarching goal: to advance the legitimate interests of the contracting parties. For the most part, scholars, judges, and...
Do legal concepts alter how we understand the past and present? The jurisprudence of race suggests that they do. For several decades, federal courts...