Plaintiffs in redistricting litigation bring second recusal motion against Justice Newby
The plaintiff’s second motion for the recusal of Justice Newby is expected to come to the same end as the first: denial.
Litigation & Procedure
Leandro III: An end to this long-running litigation? [Updated]
The “Leandro” line of cases was yet again before the North Carolina Supreme Court.
You know you made a mistake, now let me prove it
A recent medical malpractice case received a necessary privilege audit from the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
N.C. Court of Appeals to hear argument over Terps’ exit fee dispute with the ACC [Updated]
The University of Maryland’s appeal of a Guilford County trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss is slated to go before the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 26, 2013.
Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Confrontation and Cocaine, part III.b
An application of the recent Ortiz-Zape decision reveals the steps North Carolina lawyers need to take to protect their client and promote confidence in the justice system.
Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Confrontation and Cocaine, part III.a
An application of the recent Ortiz-Zape decision reveals the steps North Carolina lawyers need to take to protect their client and promote confidence in the justice system.
Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Confrontation and Cocaine, part II
Under the testing analyst and testifying analyst paradigm established in State v. Ortiz-Zape, the jury gets to hear an expert opine that a substance has been confirmed as an illegal substance, but the criminal defendant never gets to confront the expert that actually conducted the tests producing that opinion.
Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Confrontation, Confusion, and Cocaine – Clear, but not Convincing
Under the testing analyst and testifying analyst paradigm that is now the law in North Carolina, the jury gets to hear an expert opine that a substance is cocaine, but the criminal defendant never gets to confront the expert who actually conducted the tests that produced that opinion.
Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: To Lead or Not to Lead, That is the Question?!
Leading questions ordinarily allowed on cross-examination can be entirely inappropriate on direct-examination, but this does not mean only non-leading questions are permitted on direct.
Rules of engagement [rings]
Mario Williams may not be able to force his ex-fiancée to return his engagement ring, depending on the approach employed by the Texas courts.
The James Holmes trial turns its focus to knowing right from wrong
July 20, 2012. Just after midnight. A dark movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Audience members are seated to watch the
Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: North Carolina’s Police Officer Exception to the Hearsay Rule
As a law professor, I’m always looking for interesting cases from which to create exam questions, both multiple choice and
Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Getting the First and Last Word
I doubt there’s a prosecutor or plaintiff’s lawyer in the state who would give up the opportunity to be the
Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Corroborate This!
It was a Thursday afternoon, and I was contemplating a difficult and nuanced issue of evidence law. My eyes were
Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Cross-Examination by the Numbers
We’re all familiar with them, those classic cross-examination tips that, if applied correctly, will win your case and make you