The complete contents of the current issue, listed in order of appearance.
The reasonable-doubt standard, long treated as a fixed epistemic threshold, in practice operates as a heuristic constructed under conditions of cognitive load. Drawing on recent work in dual-process theory and probabilistic reasoning, this Article argues that current jury instructions systematically misdescribe the inferential task they purport to govern.
The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi clarified that the historical analogue required by Bruen need not be a dead ringer. This Comment examines what that concession reveals about the workability of an exclusively historical mode of Second Amendment adjudication.
An essay on the persistent gap between what jurors believe about eyewitness memory and what four decades of research have demonstrated. The problem, the author suggests, is not ignorance but a particular kind of confidence the courtroom is structured to reward.