Frederick K. Cox International Law Center
Frederick K. Cox International Law Center

Case Western Reserve University School of Law
2008 Jessup International Moot Court World Championship Team.

facebook linked in rss feed youtube itunes

The International Law Faculty

Dale A. Nance
John Homer Kapp Professor
Phone: 216/368-3294

John Homer Kapp Professor of Law; B.A. 1974 (Rice), J.D. 1977 (Stanford), M.A. 1981 (Cal., Berkeley)
An internationally recognized evidence scholar, Dale Nance also teaches and writes about general legal theory. Before joining the faculty in 2002, Prof. Nance taught law at Chicago-Kent, Northern Illinois University, the University of Colorado, the University of San Diego, and Cornell. Author of numerous law review articles and a general theory textbook, he also teaches an international law course on the Law of Archaeological Relics.


Professor Nance’s most recent article, “Adverse Inferences About Adverse Inferences: Restructuring Juridical Roles for Responding to Evidence Tampering by Parties to Litigation,” has been accepted for publication in Boston University Law Review. It argues that the use of adverse inferences as a response to evidence tampering should generally be replaced with summary issue-preclusion rulings by courts.

“Evidentiary Foul Play: The Roles of Judge and Jury in Responding to Evidence Tampering,” 7:1 Int’l Commentary on Evidence art.5 (2009).

“The Weights of Evidence,” 5 Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 267 (2008).

“The Inferential Arrow: A Comment on Interdisciplinary Conversation,” 6 Law, Probability, & Risk 87 (2007)

MEDICAL INJUSTICE: THE CASE AGAINST HEALTH COURTS (with Maxwell J. Mehlman), (American Association for Justice, 2007)

“Allocating the Risk of Error: Its Role in the Theory of Evidence Law,” 13 Legal Theory 129 (2007)

“Juries and Experts: Some Recent Data from Medical Malpractice Litigation,” 42 International Society of Barristers Quarterly 421 (2007)

“The Reference Class Problem and Mathematical Models of Inference,” 11 Int’l J. of Evidence & Proof 259 (2007)

“Rules, Standards, and the Internal Point of View,” 75 Fordham L. Rev. 1287 (2006)

“The Wisdom of Dallas County,” in EVIDENCE STORIES (Richard O. Lempert, ed.) (Foundation Press, 2006)

“Juror Understanding of DNA Evidence: An Empirical Assessment of Presentation Formats for Trace Evidence with a Relatively Small and Quantifiable Random Match Probability” (with Scott B. Morris), 34 J. Legal Studies 395 (2005)

“Two Concepts of Reliability,” 3:1 American Philosophical Society Newsletter on Law & Philosophy 123 (2003), reprinted in The Journal of Philosophy, Science, and Law (ed. J. Borenstein, 2005)

Crawford and Confrontation: Toward a Focus on Governmental Abuse,” AALS Evidence Section Newsletter 5 (Summer 2004)

“Rethinking Confrontation After Crawford,” 2 International Commentary on Evidence; Issue 1, Article 2 (2004)

“Reliability and the Admissibility of Experts,” 34 Seton Hall Law Review 191 (2003)

“An Empirical Assessment of Presentation Formats for Trace Evidence with a Relatively Large and Quantifiable Random Match Probability,” 42 Jurimetrics Journal 403 (2002) (with Scott B. Morris) (winner of Loevinger Prize for 2002)

“Comment on ‘Teaching Statistics to Judges, the Federal Judicial Center Statistical Examples Software Prototype: Age Discrimination Example,’” 42 Jurimetrics Journal 341 (2002)

“Expert Testimony on Fingerprints: An Internet Exchange,” 43 Jurimetrics Journal 91 (2002) (with Richard Friedman, David Kaye, Jennifer Mnookin, and Michael Saks)

“Naturalized Epistemology and the Critique of Evidence Theory,” 87 Virginia Law Review 1551 (2001)


“Evidential Completeness and the Burden of Proof,” 49:3 Hastings Law Journal 621 (1998)

“Guidance Rules and Enforcement Rules: A Better View of the Cathedral,” 83:5 Virginia Law Review 837 (1997)

“Verbal Completeness and Exclusionary Rules Under the Federal Rules of Evidence,” 75:1 Texas Law Review 51 (1996)

“A Theory of Verbal Completeness,” 80:4 Iowa L. Rev. 825 (1995)

“Conditional Probative Value and the Reconstruction of the Federal Rules of Evidence,” 94:2 Mich. L. Rev. 419 (1995)


“Civility and the Burden of Proof,” 17:3 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 647 (1994)

“Foreword: Do We Really Want to Know the Defendant?,” 70:1 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 3 (1994)

“A Comment on the Supposed Paradoxes of a Mathematical Interpretation of the Logic of Trials,” 66:3-4 B.U. L. Rev. 947 (1986), reprinted in J.S. COVINGTON, LEGAL ARGUMENT AND PROOF 300 (1993)

“Understanding Responses to Hearsay: An Extension of the Comparative Analysis,” 76:3 Minn. L. Rev. 459 (1992)

“Hear No Evil, See No Evil: On Professor Nesson's Claims About Evidence Suppression,” 3 Cardozo L. Rev. 809 (1991)

“Missing Evidence,” 13 Cardozo L. Rev. 831 (1991)

“Conditional Relevance Reinterpreted,” 70:3 B.U. L. Rev. 447 (1990), excerpted in AN EVIDENCE ANTHOLOGY (Imwinkelried & Weissenberger eds., Anderson 1996)

“Owning Ideas,” 13:3 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 757 (1990)

“The Best Evidence Principle,” 73:2 Iowa L. Rev. 227 (1988), excerpted in AN EVIDENCE ANTHOLOGY (Imwinkelried & Weissenberger eds., Anderson 1996)

“Legal Theory and the Pivotal Role of the Concept of Coercion,” 57:1 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1 (1985)

“Costs, Attorney's Fees, and Interest” (with Steven E. Kirby), 2 CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE AT TRIAL ch. 22 (1984)