At its zenith, Evidence was one of law’s most celebrated fields. Since the FRE’s codification, however, the field has fallen to dead last in citation rankings. But a remnant of its former glory remains, as Wigmore (#2) and Greenleaf (#7) *still* appear on a list of SCOTUS’s most cited scholarship.

My new paper, The Article III Factfinding Power (forthcoming in the Minnesota Law Review), is now up on SSRN. I'd welcome your thoughts and comments as I continue to improve the piece! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I'm honored to be publishing this piece with Vanderbilt Psych Prof Sarah Brown-Schmidt in volume 112 of the Virginia Law Review. In this empirical evidence law and cognitive science article, we identify the risks posed by "hear-witnesses" who inaccurately recall and recount statements at trial.

There's been so much fantastic Evidence scholarship lately. Add this to the list!

Happy to share that Developmental Evidence Rules is forthcoming in the California Law Review! What would it mean to take childhood seriously in evidence law? This article takes up that question.

What an incredible gift from a student! 😃

Excited to share two projects, forthcoming in the Minnesota Law Review and the Notre Dame Law Review, about federal courts’ increasing reliance on “external” factfinding of epistemically dubious provenance. (1/4)

I had an amazing time chatting with @aseesbhasin.bsky.social and Jasmine Gonzales Rose about their fantastic new article, "Antiracist Expert Evidence," which was recently published in the @yalelawjournal.bsky.social. Listen below! excitedutterance.com/listen/2026/...

Thrilled to share that 𝐺𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑑 has found a home with the Yale Law Journal. This piece examines parental liability regimes and parental rights, and how they are connected by a shared logic that harms children and families. Thank you to all those who read drafts and offered feedback!

It’s day 5 of being snowed in, and I’ve officially hit the “explain the character evidence prohibition” phase of trying anything and everything to keep my kids entertained. (And, in case you’re wondering, they think law students *always* have to keep their hands raised.)

Texas’s highest court holds that the Confrontation Clause required witnesses to testify unmasked during the Covid pandemic so the jury could evaluate their demeanor and credibility. And so regrettably, evidence law’s predilection for “folk psychology” marches on. www.nunn.law/blog/covid-c...

After surveying the divergent perspectives of all nine justices, I came to two conclusions. First, the era of reliability principles in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence is well and trial over. Second, the post-Crawford primary purpose test is safe, but for differing reasons.

Justices Alito and Gorsuch recently called for “reconsideration” of Crawford v. Washington, signaling potential upheaval for Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. Will the Court jettison more settled doctrine? In my new blog post, I offer a prediction. nunn.law/blog/revisit...

Today's blog post: "Supreme Court of Kentucky Finds Raw, Machine-Extracted Data Does Not Implicate the Confrontation Clause": www.evidenceprofblog.com

It’s easy to overlook Rule 401, but its low bar for relevance reflects a hugely consequential policy choice regarding how to best allocate decisionmaking power between judge, jury, and rulemakers. My thoughts on @aseesbhasin.bsky.social’s engaging new article: nunn.law/blog/asees-b...

Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 is the FRE's first response to the "AI Era." It would be a good first step, but there's much more to work yet to be done. nunn.law/blog/propose...

I just bought this photo, simply labeled "Old Judges," at an estate sale for $3. Little did the seller know that it's actually an original, official portrait of the Fuller Court from its Lochner term. That means, if my calculations are correct, I'm looking at an appraisal value of *at least* $7.

I've posted a draft of my next article, "The Administrative Law of McCarthyism," forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review, on SSRN. Comments and feedback are very welcome! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

A boycott might have been a tad extreme, but how did we get to the point where con law largely dominates the academy?

Oh dear. RIP to one of the great ones, as a scholar and as a person.

One of the more trivial annoyances I have with AI is the widespread skepticism it’s brought to em-dashes. I love em-dashes! I’ve used them liberally in my articles for a decade. But now, I avoid them when writing, given their association. Not the worst consequence of AI, of course, but a bummer.

Very excited to hear about this symposium, featuring three fantastic colleagues!

📢 Harvard Law Review Symposium Announcement: "Judicial Review in Jeopardy?" Panel discussions on October 10; print publication in June. Honored to work with co-organizer Neil Siegel and these other excellent scholars on such an important (and timely) topic ⬇️

Huge thanks to everyone who has offered incredible feedback on nunn.ai over these past few months! It's still very much a work in progress, but it's been exciting to watch nunn.ai grow as a free platform for democratizing access to evidence law. Try it out, and let me know what I can improve!

The best day-and-a-half of the year is always the Evidence Summer Workshop! We had everything from formal modeling to queer theory to analytic philosophy to doctrinal analysis. Thanks to my co-organizers Ed Cheng, Julia Simon-Kerr, and @alexnunn.bsky.social.

Arrived to @vanderbilt.edu for tomorrow’s Evidence Summer Workshop. Excited to spend two days with this evidence community. Thanks to the program committee of Ed Cheng, @alexnunn.bsky.social, @maggiewittlin.bsky.social, and Julia Simon-Kerr for organizing, and to all others helping out! #ESW

I often return to this amusing anecdote from Thomas Grey. Amid the heyday of formalism, the Harvard faculty threatened to withhold support for the University of Chicago's fledgling law school because Chicago planned to offer courses on "unscientific" public law topics like . . . Constitutional Law.

Thanks so much to my amazing students at Texas A&M!

My Public Comment in Strong Opposition to the Proposed Amendment to the Prior Inconsistent Statement Hearsay Exclusion: tinyurl.com/5cvp3kj3

The internal deliberations of the law journal that rejected me seven minutes after submission:

We had a great DC launch reception for the Texas A&M Center on the Structural Constitution last night! It was an honor to speak w/Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan & Judge Neomi Rao of the D.C. Circuit on the importance of studying structural constitutional law.

Look what my friend @alexnunn.bsky.social made! 💅

This is crazy impressive!

I’m very excited to introduce wigmore.ai, an AI platform for learning and understanding evidence law. Named after the legendary scholar, it's designed to provide clear, professor-style explanations for all your evidence law questions.

Tried to save some time editing by using Find & Replace. But now, after encountering the curious typo "Federal Rulesquently" for the third time in as many pages, I think I might have made a mistake...

Furthest I ever got: Atty: What is your occupation? Me: Teacher. Atty: What do you teach? Me: Law. Atty: Which courses? Me: Civ Pro. And Evidence. Judge: Really? Which book do you use for Evidence? I teach it too as an adjunct! Was dismissed soon after….

Another extraordinary Evidence Summer Workshop in the books! Great ideas, great conversation, great people. Thanks to Ed Cheng for lead organizing and @alexnunn.bsky.social and Julia Simon-Kerr for co-organizing. #ESW