IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bep/upennl/upenn_wps-1014.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evidence, Procedure, and the Upside of Cognitive Error

Author

Listed:
  • 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Sanchirico, "undated". "Evidence, Procedure, and the Upside of Cognitive Error," Scholarship at Penn Law upenn_wps-1014, University of Pennsylvania Law School.
  • Handle: RePEc:bep:upennl:upenn_wps-1014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=upenn/wps
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Keywords

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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.law.upenn.edu/ .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.