The Theoretical Foundations of Evidence Law. Tomer Kenneth from NYU School of Law discusses how legal systems should handle truth claims, and how those decisions are more about political legitimacy than mere objective accuracy.

#BelieveWomen and the Presumption of Innocence. Kim Ferzan from the University of Pennsylvania discusses efforts to respect and believe complainants raising sexual assault allegations, such as #BelieveWomen, and how they interact with the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Modest Impact of the Modern Confrontation Clause. Diana Bibb from William & Mary Law School discusses her paper with Jeff Bellin exploring the intersection of hearsay and the modern Confrontation Clause, and suggesting that Crawford's impact may be far more limited that commonly thought.

The Truth Machines. Jinee Lokaneeta from Drew University discusses the modern rise of truth machines -- lie detectors, brain scans, and truth serums -- in the Indian criminal justice system.

Explaining the Evidence. Dave Lagnado from University College London discusses his new book, Explaining the Evidence, which talks about how people construct and use causal models to understand the world and make decisions. He also suggests how recent scholarship in causal modelling can help us improve our decisionmaking.

The Proof. Fred Schauer from the University of Virginia discusses his new book, The Proof, which discusses how evidence law and theory can help us make better decisions in everyday life.

Should Evidence Law Exclude Apologies? Jennifer Pusateri from George Washington University argues that the rules of evidence should exclude apologies on both policy and evidentiary grounds.

Lay Identifications Based on Surveillance Video. George Bach from the University of New Mexico discusses the use of lay witnesses to make identifications on surveillance videos.

Guiding Jurors on Damage Award Decisions. Valerie Hans from Cornell Law School discusses her recent psychological research on how the legal system might provide guidance to jurors assessing pain and suffering damages.

Cognitive Bias in Forensic Pathology Decisions. Itiel Dror from University College London shows that medical examiner decisions can be influenced by the non-medical information to which the experts are exposed, and argues for restrictions on the ways in which medical examiners use such information.