Evidence, Procedure, and the Upside of Cognitive Error

Chris Sanchirico

Scholarship at Penn Law from University of Pennsylvania Law School

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.

Keywords: Evidence; procedure; cognitive error; eyewitness testimony; jury deliberation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cbe and nep-law
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=upenn/wps (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: Evidence, Procedure, and the Upside of Cognitive Error
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bep:upennl:upenn_wps-1014

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Scholarship at Penn Law from University of Pennsylvania Law School
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().