• About
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   DiscoverArchive Home
    • Law School
    • Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Works
    • View Item
    •   DiscoverArchive Home
    • Law School
    • Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Works
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    The Perils of Evidentiary Manipulation

    Cheng, Edward K.
    : http://hdl.handle.net/1803/7059
    : 9/24/2007

    Abstract

    The use of evidentiary rules to achieve substantive goals strikes me as a Faustian bargain, and, given Bierschbach and Stein's acknowledgedly tentative position, I hope to dissuade them of the virtues of the practice. My goal therefore is to explore briefly the potential dark side of specialized evidentiary rules. The concerns of injecting substantive goals into evidence law extend far beyond the narrow legitimacy concerns Bierschbach and Stein raise. It is not simply the question of whether we aspire to a pluralistic or majority-take-all democratic society. Rather, evidentiary manipulation threatens the legitimacy of criminal and evidence law... Bierschbach and Stein's descriptive thesis, which comprises the core of their fascinating piece, is surely right. In a number of instances, evidentiary rules seemingly mediate between conflicting positions in criminal law. In addition, as they carefully acknowledge, this synergy may be largely fortuitous. No grand social engineer purposely chose the evidentiary rules to effect a compromise. Rather, the "mediating" rules are "product[s] of diverse institutional inputs and eras." The mechanisms that led to the current (happy) state of affairs may be simply too subtle and complex to discern. The trouble begins, however, when we take up the normative torch and explore what might happen if evidentiary rules were purposely used to achieve substantive objectives. We immediately encounter dangers well trodden in the procedural literature about draconian filing deadlines, onerous discovery rules, and other hidden traps. Perhaps evidentiary rules are different from procedural ones, but I struggle with finding a meaningful distinction, and Bierschbach and Stein leave the issue unaddressed.
    Show full item record

    Files in this item

    Icon
    Name:
    The Perils of Evidentiary.pdf
    Size:
    391.8Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Description:
    published article
    View/Open

    This item appears in the following collection(s):

    • Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Works

    Browse

    All of DiscoverArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login
    Give Now
    Support the Jean and Alexander Heard Library

    Gifts to the Library support the learning and research needs of the entire Vanderbilt community.

    Learn More
    Follow Us
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS
    • Jean and Alexander Heard Library
    • 419 21st Avenue South
    • Nashville, TN 37203
    • 615-322-7100
    • Hours
    • About
    • Employment
    • Staff
    • Contact