Aviva A. Orenstein
Professor of Law
Friends, Gangbangers, Custody Disputants, Lend Me Your Passwords, 31 MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE LAW REVIEW 185 (2012). [SSRN]
EVIDENCE LAW, A STUDENT'S GUIDE TO THE LAW OF EVIDENCE AS APPLIED IN AMERICAN TRIALS, 3rd ed. (with Roger C. Park, David P. Leonard, and Steven Goldberg). Eagan, MN: West Law School, 2011.
Facing the Unfaceable: Dealing with Prosecutorial Denial in Postconviction Cases of Actual Innocence, 48 SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW 401 (2011). [SSRN]
Her Last Words: Dying Declarations and Modern Confrontation Jurisprudence, 2010 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW 1141 (2010). [PDF]
Honoring Margaret Berger with a Sensible Idea: Insisting that Judges Employ a Balancing Test before Admitting the Accused’s Convictions Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2), 75 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW 1291 (2010).
Sex, Threats, and Absent Victims: The Lessons of Regina v. Bedingfield for Modern Confrontation and Domestic Violence Cases, 79 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 115 (2010). [HeinOnline]
Presuming Guilt or Protecting Victims?: Analyzing the Special Treatment of Those Accused of Rape, in RACE TO INJUSTICE: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE DUKE LACROSSE RAPE CASE (Michael L. Seigel, Ed.) Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2009.
Propensity or Stereotype?: A Misguided Evidence Experiment in Indian Country, 19 CORNELL JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 173 (2009). [HeinOnline]
Children As Witness: A Symposium on Child Competence and the Accused's Right to Confront Child Witnesses, 82 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL 909 (2007).
Special Issues Raised By Rape Trials, in Ethics and Evidence Symposium, 76 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1585 (2007).
THE ETHICS OF CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION: ADVOCACY, RESPECT FOR PARENTS, AND THE RIGHT TO AN OPEN FUTURE. Bloomington, IN: Poynter Center, 2006.
Deviance, Due Process, and the False Promise of Federal Rule of Evidence 403, 90 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 1487 (2005). [HeinOnline]
Civility in Litigation: How Can the Profession Promote and Enforce Good Behavior? (with Torrence Lewis), 1 INDIANA CIVIL LITIGATION LAW REVIEW 77 (2004).
What We Say We Do on Review, What We Actually Do on Review, Why They Are So Dissimilar, and How We Manage Not to Notice, 2 LAW, PROBABILITY & RISK 269 (2003).
Apology Excepted: Incorporating a Feminist Analysis into Evidence Policy Where You'd Least Expect It, 28 SOUTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW 221 (1999).
No Bad Men!: A Feminist Analysis of Character Evidence in Rape Trials, 49 HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 663 (1998).
Evidence in a Different Voice: Some Thoughts on Professor Jonakait’s Critique of a Feminist Approach, 4 WILLIAM & MARY JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND THE LAW 295 (1997).
“My God!”: A Feminist Critique of the Excited Utterance Exception to the Hearsay Rule, 85 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 159 (1997).
Evidence and Feminism, in FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE PROJECT. Littleton, CO: Rothman, 1995.
The Federal Rules of Evidence After Sixteen Years: The Effect of “Plain Meaning” Jurisprudence, the Need for an Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence, and Suggestions for Selective Revision of the Rules (with Edward R. Becker), 60 GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 857 (1992). Reprinted in 142 FEDERAL RULES DECISION 519.
Is the Evidence All In? (with Edward R. Becker), 78 ABA JOURNAL 82 (Oct. 1992).
Note. Presidential Immunity from Civil Liability, 68 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 236 (1983).