Discussion (1L): How Does Criminal Law "Know" the Truth?

Catalog description

Litigation is supposed to be a search for truth, and this search is especially important in criminal law, where outcomes involve the maximum power of the state against the individual, and the consequences of error seem intolerable. But how does criminal law determine the "truth"? Does criminal adjudication represent an epistemological system -- a system for producing knowledge? Or is it something else entirely? This set of issues necessarily implicates a wide variety of legal doctrines that you will be exploring throughout your legal education, but in this short course we will sample provocative excerpts from case law, jurisprudence, social science, and history to address several questions. First, what are the procedural standards of proof that determine the kind of truth criminal justice demands? How much more important is it to avoid wrongful conviction of innocent persons than to convict the guilty? Can statistical evidence alone ever be enough to establish guilt? And how do legal "presumptions" affect our determinations of the "facts" of a case? Second, does the criminal justice system address the many ways that witnesses, even when confident and morally honest, get the truth wrong? For example, eyewitness identifications are highly persuasive evidence -- but DNA exonerations and social science research reveal they are frequently unreliable and incorrect. How does/should the system mitigate this problem? Why does the public view seem to view "direct evidence" as more persuasive than "merely" circumstantial evidence? What does social science research tell us about the phenomenon of people falsely confessing to crimes? How confident are we in the forensic "science" testimony that expert witnesses may offer? Third, in what way is the "truth" as determined by our criminal justice system shaped and sculpted by the government? Does the system do anything to mitigate…