Prof @uclaw_sf. Law, brain, behavior, neurotech, policy, collective cognitive capital. Educator, SFUSD parent, bereaved mother, neuroscientist.🚲 + 🚇 + 🏘
San Francisco, CA
Joined July 2018
- Tweets3.6K
- Following1.5K
- Followers4.6K
- Likes6.4K
Emily Murphy retweeted
My considered view is that teaching Evidence, even as a large doctrinal class, is fundamentally a skills class, and a core lawyering skills class at that, even if one never litigates. It may be one of the most important classes in learning skills where lawyers add value.
Emily Murphy retweeted
If I tagged everyone who contributed a chapter, I’d basically tag my entire following list, so I’ll refrain. But if you grab a copy, be sure not to miss Chapter 81, by yours truly and my partner in neurolaw crime @ProfEmilyMurphy.
Or if you prefer PDF: tinyurl.com/RissmanMurphy202…
I hope Individuals A, B, and C are having a flop sweat weekend now that their racism and sexism are on full display for all to know.
Emily Murphy retweeted
Important thread below. (⬇️)
As Leah notes, the complaint's cruel personal attacks against amazing professors are particularly reprehensible.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Emily Murphy retweeted
It's always tempting to dismiss commentary like "the Supreme Court said Trump is above the law" as overblown hyperbole.
But in this case, that's actually what the Court said--the procedural protections we use for ordinary criminal defendants aren't good enough
Emily Murphy retweeted
The one thing I'll note about the immunity case is that J Alito, joined by CJ Roberts, wrote about the importance and power of limiting instructions just 10 days ago. Today, limiting instructions are good enough for individual defendants but not for protecting the Presidency.
Just as an evidence prof; Part III-C, barring prosecutors' use of evidence of essentially any official presidential conduct - EVEN THAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD - from use in prosecution for unofficial conduct is WILD. It's a small part of the op but it's just wrong. ACB explains why
Sotomayor correctly calls this "dramatic and unprecedented." The majority uses a *totally unjustified* statement that what's good for the goose isn't good enough for the gander in terms of protecting the office of the presidency. Juries aren't to be trusted there to follow rules.
Logging back into this infernal app to be 😡🤬🤯 at Alito playing OB and *cherry picking clinical evidence* to strongly imply that pre-viability PPROM usually works out alright with a live baby!
IT DOES NOT. 15 minutes of perusing the *scope* of the literature reveals this.
Emily Murphy retweeted
I always point out to my students that end-of-semester office hours are a great opportunity to get cold-calling revenge: any topic, from any point in the course, in any order, for literally hours.
A long (and ✈️lagged) but thought provoking day talking about the Future of Mind in a Digital Society at @DondersInst and then @RUReflects. Honored to give the keynotes; check out the amazing panels and discussions on neurotech, smartphones, AI, trust and sustainable democracy ⬇️
Emily Murphy retweeted
Next week, SCOTUS will hear Diaz v. US--a case that explores whether expert "framework evidence" violates FRE 704. The incredible duo of @TeneilleBrown and @ProfEmilyMurphy joined me to preview the case and discuss their excellent amicus brief!
Link:excitedutterance.com/listen/…
Emily Murphy retweeted
Congrats again to @TeneilleBrown and @ProfEmilyMurphy, whose amicus brief was discussed extensively (and approvingly!) by SCOTUS during oral arguments this morning
Next week, SCOTUS will hear Diaz v. US--a case that explores whether expert "framework evidence" violates FRE 704. The incredible duo of @TeneilleBrown and @ProfEmilyMurphy joined me to preview the case and discuss their excellent amicus brief!
Link:excitedutterance.com/listen/…