Jules Epstein

March 15, 2019 | The Legal Intelligencer

In a trial, or in a Congressional hearing, it is fair to test a witness' credibility. Congress has no rules of evidence—but those applied at trial are informative and help the discussion of whether Cohen's having girlfriends while married is fair game.

By Jules Epstein

4 minute read

November 08, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

Jules EpsteinOn Oct. 25, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted two amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence—the definitions of "Present Sense Impressions" and "Excited Utterances" both had new language added. Each rule now concludes with the following statement:

By Jules Epstein

5 minute read

October 05, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

The hearing showed a missed opportunity by Democrats to use the tools of trial advocacy to make points and influence those truly in need of convincing—the few senators whose votes were in play (and, to some extent, the many Americans still on the fence).

By Jules Epstein

5 minute read

June 19, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

No area of law may be more ­vexing, and more subject to dispute, than the admission or exclusion of "other acts" evidence—often mis-labeled "prior bad acts" evidence—in criminal cases. Evidence of an "act" that only ­conveys the actor's character is inadmissible; but ­evidence with a non-character purpose may be admissible, subject to a balancing test.

By Jules Epstein

6 minute read

March 31, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

One year ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling permitting trial judges, in appropriate cases, to have experts in memory, vision and perception, and/or psychology testify about how memory may be fallible and even become distorted.

By Jules Epstein and Marissa Bluestine

7 minute read

March 30, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

One year ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling permitting trial judges, in appropriate cases, to have experts in memory, vision and perception, and/or psychology testify about how memory may be fallible and even become distorted.

By Jules Epstein and Marissa Bluestine

7 minute read

May 08, 2009 | The Legal Intelligencer

Until recently, it appeared that Pennsylvania law governing post-conviction relief petitions (the challenges to a criminal conviction after direct appeal) were in conflict with governing federal law. This was particularly true regarding whether cumulative prejudice (the accumulation of prejudice from each distinct error of trial counsel) could warrant relief.

By Jules Epstein

4 minute read

February 25, 2009 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Feb. 18 release of the National Academy of Sciences report, "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States," requires all those who are invested in the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases to take a step back.

By Jules Epstein

3 minute read

April 05, 2011 | The Legal Intelligencer

In criminal trials, defense objections to hearsay from unavailable witnesses include a constitutional claim -- introduction of the evidence violates the right of confrontation.

By Jules Epstein

5 minute read

February 13, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

For those concerned about ensuring accurate eyewitness testimony and avoiding wrongful convictions based on sincere but mistaken evidence, one can paraphrase Charles Dickens in describing the current state of the law:

By Jules Epstein

7 minute read