Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Evidence, Procedure, and the Upside of Cognitive Error

Contents:

Author Info

  • Chris Sanchirico

    (University of Pennsylvania Law School & Wharton School, Business and Public Policy Department)

Abstract

Humans are imperfect information processors, a fact almost universally bemoaned in legal scholarship. But when it comes to how the legal system itself processes information, cognitive limitations are largely good news. Evidentiary procedure - inclusive of trial, discovery, and investigation - relies heavily on the fact that human mental capacity is limited. Such limits are crucial to separating sincere from insincere testimony. Moreover, notes and other cognitive artifacts that individuals make to compensate for their limited cognitive ability are an important source of evidence. This article's primary objective is to elucidate the extent to which cognitive imperfection is beneficial rather than detrimental to evidentiary process and thus to law as a whole. Secondarily, the article discusses how the law of evidentiary process tilts the playing field of litigation in a manner that exacerbates the cognitive limitations of the potentially insincere and offsets the limitations of competing participants.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=upenn/wps
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Pennsylvania Law School in its series Scholarship at Penn Law with number upenn_wps-1014.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:bep:upennl:upenn_wps-1014

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.law.upenn.edu/

Related research

Keywords: Evidence; procedure; cognitive error; eyewitness testimony; jury deliberation;

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bep:upennl:upenn_wps-1014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.