Professor Jules Epstein is quoted in this article about the challenging nature of Post Conviction Relief Cases and Appeals. He says a new CLE, which he helped develop content for, is an important step in educating attorneys. Read the Full Story
Professor Jules Epstein is quoted in this article on Newsworks WHYY about the wife of the shooter in the worst mass shooting in modern American history. Should she be criminally charged after knowing about her husband’s plans to attack the nightclub but not alerting police? Read the Full Story
It is remarkable, as one reads cases, to find a series of published ORDERS in which judges tell lawyers to keep the “reptile” theory out of the courtroom. THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Defendant Ruta Obergfell, M.D.’s Motion in Limine #1 to Preclude Impermissible Use of the Reptile Theory, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. The Plaintiffs and their counsel are hereby barred from arguing or soliciting testimony based on the REPTILE theory including, but not limited to, making arguments or soliciting evidence concerning “community safety or protection,” “public safety or protection,” “safety rules,” “sending a message, “needlessly endangering patients,” or “being guardians of the community.” Hopper v. Ruta, 2013 Colo. Dist. LEXIS 249, *1 (Colo. Dist. Ct. 2013). See also, Pracht v. Saga Freight Logistics, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149775, *4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2015)(“ Defendants’ motion to prohibit any Golden Rule argument and/or Reptile Theory questions and argument is GRANTED.”). A less successful attempt occurred more recently, …
Perhaps it is not a startling position, but “when a judge earlier had significant, personal involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision regarding the defendant’s case[,]” that judge must recuse himself or herself from judicial or appellate review. That principal is now enshrined not merely as one of professional conduct, but as a guarantee of Due Process. And this came about in a case with some Temple Law connections. The decision came on June 9 in a 5-3 ruling from the United States Supreme Court in a case from Pennsylvania. In Williams v. Pennsylvania, Terry Williams, a death row inmate, had won a last minute reprieve and the right to a new penalty trial when a Philadelphia Judge determined that “the trial prosecutor had suppressed material, exculpatory evidence…and engaged in ‘prosecutorial gamesmanship.’” When the prosecution appealed that ruling the case went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, presided over by then-Chief Justice Ronald Castille. There was only one problem – the Chief Justice had been the District Attorney at the time of Williams’ original trial …
Director of Advocacy Programs Jules Epstein is quoted in this article by TribLive.com about a highly publicized sexual abuse case about to go to trial. Has the intense media coverage surrounding the case made it necessary for lawyers to move the case to a new venue? Read the Full Story
Professor Jules Epstein expressed skepticism about a judge’s decision to permit prospective jurors to be asked whether they have watched the popular Netflix docuseries. Read the Full Story
The art of witness impeachment is inextricably bound with the substantive law of evidence. Evidence rules explicitly allow for impeachment of any witness (even one called by the party) and set the procedures for attacking with inconsistencies – the impeaching document need not be shown to the witness, and impeachment must occur with there being some opportunity for the witness to respond and explain. But the rules are silent on at least two critical issues – the why of impeachment, and a definition of what exactly makes a prior statement “inconsistent.” The former question is one answered not in evidence law but in the art and techniques of advocacy. We impeach witnesses to discredit in-court testimony and show them to be liars or mistaken and unreliable. We impeach witnesses to tell or support our own story. We impeach witnesses for the drama it brings to the courtroom and the control it places in the hands of the questioner. As to when a prior statement is “inconsistent,” there is little in terms of a definition beyond inconsistency being in the eye of the advocate/beholder, with a judge viewing …
How should judges approach a case where a testifying witness is going to be impeached, but the impeaching document was not created or adopted by the witness? What is the rule when the impeaching lawyer has a report by person “B” that avers what testifying witness “A” allegedly said? The rule, as is developed below, should be to allow the impeachment if the examiner has a good faith reason to believe the statement was made. The impeachment of a witness with her/his own words, showing a change of story that establishes poor memory, unreliability, or outright mendacity, creates excitement in the courtroom. As explained by Wigmore, “the purpose is to induce the tribunal to discard the one statement because the witness had also made another statement which cannot at the same time be true.” 3A Wigmore, Evidence § 1040 at 1048 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). See also, United States v. Damatta-Olivera, 37 M.J. 474, 477-478 (C.M.A. 1993). A Pennsylvania case put it more eloquently: The question of credibility sometimes depends on the slightest inclination of the …
Can science step in and assist in Rule 403 determinations of “unfair prejudice”? When confronted with “gruesome” evidence, all too often autopsy photos or images of severe injuries, judges must assess whether there is a risk of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury and then, if the risk is present, “may” exclude the proof.1 Yet there is no court-dictated workable metric for assessing when either risk is present beyond boilerplate terminology such as whether the “[e]vidence… makes a conviction more likely because it provokes an emotional response in the jury or otherwise tends to affect adversely the jury’s attitude toward the defendant wholly apart from its judgment as to his guilt or innocence of the crime charged.”2 The standard is akin to that used to describe when material is obscene — an “I know it when I see it” approach to decision-making.3 This approach begets arbitrariness. That this is so may be seen by contrasting claims of unfair prejudice in criminal and civil cases. The default in criminal seems to be that of admissibility, demonstrated in the extreme …
Sadly, it can be the rare witness who does not come with some baggage – a criminal conviction, a potential bias, an inconsistent statement, or some other challenge to her/his credibility. So, the proponent of that witness has to make a choice – bring it out first, or simply wait for the sting of cross-examination. The suggestion of this article is to do the former, a technique supported by law and, as importantly, by the tenets of solid advocacy. As litigators, we are told emphatically that a witness’ credibility may not be bolstered before it is attacked. But this is wrong in two regards – the limitation is actually as to bolstering with character for truthfulness, which may occur only after an averment of the witness having an untruthful character; and it is inapposite when the form of bolstering has the appearance of attacking one’s own witness. Abundant caselaw makes this point. As explained by the First Circuit nearly thirty years ago, “[t]he prosecution, having called a witness, may then ‘take the wind out of …
Temple University Beasley School of Law
1719 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-7861
© 2025 Temple University Beasley School of Law.
