The Federal Evidence Review accepts professional and scholarly articles for publication. Evidence Viewpoints® is a periodic feature which highlights significant and noteworthy evidence issues. The series provides a forum for judges, practitioners, and scholars to discuss and address topical evidence matters. Submissions for Evidence Viewpoints® can be sent to: Submissions@FederalEvidence.com
The objectives of the Federal Evidence Review include: (1) monitoring current federal evidence developments, cases and trends; (2) serving as a key litigation aid and reference source for practitioners at all litigation stages; (3) providing a forum for federal litigators, jurists, academia, and other practitioners and students of evidence; and (4) promoting ideas and stimulating discussion of key evidence issues. Submissions must satisfy the following standards for consideration.
The Federal Evidence Review seeks topical articles that may aid practitioners, jurists and the academia concerning evidence law. Examples may include discussion of new Supreme Court evidence cases; practical ways of introducing evidence; application of new evidence rules, cases, or principles; and highlighting and suggesting resolution of circuit splits on key evidence issues.
Some illustrative subject areas have included: (1) leading evidence issues; (2) Supreme Court watch; (3) practice tip and practical advice in handling evidence issues; (4) emerging or developing consensus on evidence issues; (5) circuit splits; (6) open evidence issues in the courts; (7) other significant evidence cases or issues; and (8) pending or new amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Completed Articles: Completed articles or text may be submitted to the the Submissions Editor at: Submissions@FederalEvidence.com.
Submissions should include the following:
- A draft article or other text in Microsoft Word or Open Document Format (ranging from one to three thousand words), which is double-spaced and includes a suggested title.
- An Article Abstract (no more than 200 words).
- If any of the submission has been previously published (including any graphics), written permission from the copyright holder to republish it.
- Articles should comply with the latest edition for the Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation.
- References to citations will normally be included in the text; however, endnotes may be permitted.
- The author’s resume including credentials, degrees earned, previously published articles and contact information (address, telephone and fax numbers, email address)
- Charts, graphs, diagrams, photographs or other illustrations are encouraged for Evidence Viewpoints®. To enhance the quality of reproduction, graphics should be 300 dpi to ensure adequate reproduction; for photographs, a high-resolution color photo (JPG) is recommended.
- If you or your organization is involved directly or indirectly in any aspect of a controversy, case or client that is the subject of your article, this should be fully disclosed. A paragraph at the end of the article should provide this disclosure to the reader.
- Retain copies of any submitted materials (including articles, proposals, photographs and graphics) as submitted materials cannot be returned.
Proposals: Suggestions or proposals for articles and similar inquiries may be submitted to the Submissions Editor at: Submissions@FederalEvidence.com. In making a proposal to write an article, blog post, or other text, please provide: (1) A brief description of the proposed article and suggested title; (2) the prospective author’s resume including credentials, degrees earned, previously published articles; and (3) author contact information (address, telephone and fax numbers, email address).
Blog Posts: Guest blog posts on cases and evidence issues of interest are welcome. Examples may be found on FederalEvidence.com/blog.
By submitting any text (or a proposal to write text) to the Federal Evidence Review, the Author agrees to publication in the Review, Federal Evidence Blog, or related publications under the following terms:
- The Author acknowledges that the Federal Evidence Review shall have all final editorial discretion and decisions as to publication, if any.
- The Author warrants that the work does not infringe copyright or any other intellectual property and that the author has obtained any relevant permissions to reproduce material within the article, including text, images or illustrations.
- The Author agrees to grant the copyright in the work to the Federal Evidence Review, in exchange for the Review publishing the article and providing the author a nonexclusive license to republish the submission
- The Author understands that the Federal Evidence Review does not provide any remuneration for the copyright to the work submitted to the Review, Federal Evidence Blog, or related publications.
For a few examples of past articles (a couple available in PDF format), consider these recent submissions:
Chet Kaufman, "Decryption As Privileged Testimony Under The Fifth Amendment," 9 Fed. Evid. Rev. 801-08 (Aug. 2012); James Silver, "Decoding Encryption for Litigators," 9 Fed. Evid. Rev. 809-14 (Aug. 2012) (a federal prosecutor and defense attorney offer their perspectives on the extent that the government may compel an individual to provide a password or access to encrypted computer files or information under the Fifth Amendment; the authors were recently on opposing sides in the case of In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2012) (Nos. 11-12268, 11-15421), in which the Eleventh Circuit reversed an order compelling production of unencrypted computer contents after holding that the “decryption and production of the hard drives’ contents would trigger Fifth Amendment protection because it would be testimonial, and that such protection would extend to the Government’s use of the drives’ contents”)
Questions and Answers on the Recently Restyled Federal Rules of Evidence, 9 Fed. Evid. Rev. 225-29 (March 2012) (Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, who served as Chair of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules during the restyling amendment process, provides insights and background on the multi-year effort which culminated in the recent amendments) (pending)
Understanding New FRE 502 (Attorney-Client Privilege And Work-Product Doctrine), 5 Fed. Evid. Rev. 1454-66, 1471 (Oct. 2008)
FRE 404(b): Ten Common Questions and Misconceptions, 2 Fed. Evid. Rev. 243 (Apr. 2005)
Article reprints may be requested. Upon publication of a work in the Federal Evidence Review, the author or others may order a reprint file for the work for a standard fee. The PDF reprint may be printed or distributed (including on a website or by email) or used for training, conferences or newsletters. The PDF reprint may be useful to circulate evidence ideas or for current or potential clients or other audiences. To order a reprint, contact: Submissions@FederalEvidence.com
For questions or for more information, please contact us at: