Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Lippke, R. L. (2013). Justifying the proof structure of criminal trials. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 17, 323–346.

Abstract: During criminal trials, defendants enjoy a presumption of innocence, the burden of proof is on the government, and the standard of proof it must meet—beyond a reasonable doubt—is exacting. This ‘proof structure’ of trials is usually justified with an error distribution rationale. Yet there are well-known difficulties in establishing the optimal ratio of errors of false conviction to errors of false acquittals and with determining whether the proof structure enables us to obtain that ratio over a sufficiently lengthy run of cases. According to an alternative justification of the proof structure, individuals have a second-order moral right to demand rigorous, independent evaluations of the evidence that they have committed crimes before their primary moral rights are curtailed by legal punishment. The proof structure of criminal trials is one way to honour this right. Various objections to this defence of the proof structure are considered.

Journal Article 2: Seigler, T. J. (2003). Understanding original intent and stare decisis: Two methods of interpreting the establishment clause. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 208–237.

Abstract: Religion in U.S. public venues has been strategically constrained by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Specifically, the Establishment Clause bedevils school leaders in negotiating the boundaries of government and religion as operated in or around schools. To traverse the blurry lines between church and state, school leaders may find help in two major interpretive methods, namely original intent and stare decisis. Understanding the elements that give these methods their character and the methodologies that make them operative in resolving legal disputes could serve as a navigational tool for school leaders.