Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Jules Epstein
The Character Witness Cross-Examination: A 'Juvenile' Conundrum
Professor Jules Epstein of Temple Univ. Beasley School of Law. Courtesy photo A recent July 2026, 3-3 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court left unresolved a criminal law evidence question—may an accused’s prior adjudications of delinquency findings that the juvenile "broke the law’" be used to cross-examine defense "good character" witnesses? The split decision left in place a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruling that such cross is permitted.
Problematic Lawyering and Wrongful Convictions
Professor Jules Epstein of Temple Univ. Beasley School of Law. Courtesy photo The Legal Intelligencer recently published articles about claims of “collusion” and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office being under an “ethical microscope.” The reporting focuses on a federal judge looking into claims of problematic lawyering in the Philly DA's office.
What’s Your 404(b) Plan—Is It Linked?
Professor Jules Epstein of Temple Univ. Beasley School of Law. Courtesy photo The word “plan” in Rule 404(b) is problematic—it is used so loosely as to let us say that “plan” as opposed to “propensity,” like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Is it a plan if I: Rob someone when my family is hungry, and did that once before in similar circumstances? Kill my competitors one by one to leave me ‘king of the hill?’ Burglarize a house where no one was home and did that one or more times before?
The Shame of Post-Conviction Lawyering
Marissa Boyers Bluestine, assistant director of the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, left, and professor Jules Epstein of Temple University Beasley School of Law, right. Courtesy photos On May 19, the Philadelphia Inquirer published “Advocate to Adversary,” a critical assessment of counsel appointed to represent persons convicted of crime who seek post-conviction relief.
AI Suggested My Cross-Examination? Stop Before You Start.
Professor Jules Epstein of Temple Univ. Beasley School of Law. Courtesy photo A recent post on an attorney Listserv included the following message—having never encountered an expert in a particular field before, the lawyer explained that they had “used AI for a suggested cross-examination since I had never cross-examined [that type of expert] before … .” The type of expert was one on the behaviors that might be exhibited by children who are victims of sexual abuse, including delayed reporting.
Opinions of Guilt: Inadmissible and Uncurable
Professor Jules Epstein of Temple Univ. Beasley School of Law. Courtesy photo In a trial, it is the opinion of the jury as to whether the accused is guilty that counts and no one else’s opinion (“I believe or know this defendant is guilty”) matters, as that would invade the province of the jury (and, applying Rule 701, just isn’t helpful since jurors are equally capable of determining this).
Is 'Manner of Death' Not Real Science?
Professor Jules Epstein of Temple Univ. Beasley School of Law. Courtesy photo It is classic advocacy for a prosecutor to ask two questions at the end of a medical examiner’s direct examination: What is the cause of death? What is the manner of death? The latter is invariably answered “homicide,” and in many instances that is readily ascertainable and not a matter of dispute, as when a street-corner killing by gunfire occurs.
These Results Are Accurate—A Piece of Paper Says So?
Professor Jules Epstein of Temple Univ. Beasley School of Law. Courtesy photo On Nov. 19, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Vance.
Analysis of Record Challenges View of Charlie Kirk as Laudable Persuader
Click to enter your existing username and password or create a new account. Click to purchase an individual user subscription with your credit card. CommentaryEvidence Ee must know and distinguish between true and ethical persuasion and argument form and content that are demagogic. 7 minute readOctober 23, 2025 at 11:36 AM Professor Jules Epstein of Temple Univ. Beasley School of Law. Courtesy photo The murder of Charlie Kirk was just that—a crime, wrong and unconscionable.
Is It Epstein or Is It ChatGPT?
Click to enter your existing username and password or create a new account. Click to purchase an individual user subscription with your credit card. Expert OpinionEvidence What I learned at a recent conference for training advocacy faculty and coaches is that, when it comes to the design of an oral argument, one can ask the question “is it from the brain of [name of advocate] or from ChatGPT?” 7 minute readSeptember 23, 2025 at 09:11 AM Professor Jules Epstein of Temple Univ. Beasley School of Law.
Is Pennsylvania’s 'State of Mind' Any Clearer?
The power of the class action lies in its ability to provide redress to individuals who would otherwise lack access to justice. When these mechanisms function properly, they provide significant aggregated relief, deter unlawful behavior, and encourage corporate accountability. However, they must provide tangible benefits to the actual members of the class, not just to plaintiffs counsel or external beneficiaries.
There Is No 'Here-Say-So' Rule
Arbitration emerged from a healthy skepticism of the court system, its lengthy timelines, procedural complexity, rigidity and high costs. So, why is it that, nearly a century after the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provided arbitration with a firm legal foundation in the United States, modern arbitration often resembles litigation all over again?
First let's scare off the lawyers
Shakespeare’s Dick the Butcher, in the play Henry VI, uttered the oft-quoted words “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Shakespeare’s intent with these words has been debated, but one interpretation is significant. “Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.” Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 371 (1985) (Stevens, J. dissenting). What brought this on?
It's Time to End the 'Weaponization' Claim
Are there certain words lawyers should not use as they respond to accusations that a client engaged in criminal conduct? And as we teach advocacy skills to lawyers-to-be, should we be teaching about the pernicious nature of some words in the common discourse and say “you can be better than that.” My vote is for “weaponize” and its variations as front and center in that category. The concepts of “weaponized justice” and “weaponized prosecutions” now permeate our discourse.
Lawyers: Uncle Sam Needs You!
On Sunday, March 9, 2025, President Donald J. Trump announced on Fox News, “We have a lot of law firms we are going after.” This was no idle threat. Law firms that represent clients who have opposed Trump have already been targeted and economically punished in executive orders.
JD Vance Fails Constitutional Law
In a law school class, one way to assess a student’s performance (and professionalism) is with Three Cs—consistency, clarity and correctness. Considering the vice president’s recent attack on federal judges for reviewing the constitutionality of various Trump policies, by the standards that would be used to assess a law student’s competence (and fitness for the profession) he fails. What did he say? In a message on X, he wrote:
The Pennsylvania Superior Court and the Wrong Business
When is a business record not a business record. Without sounding silly, it is when it is someone else’s business.
Do We Filter Potential Clients Based on Stereotypes?
We read or hear about it too often—employers or realtors screen out prospects by race or gender. As reported by NPR in spring 2024, in a recent and massive study of employers, applicants with names such as Brad and Greg were up against Darnell and Lamar. Amanda and Kristen competed for jobs with Ebony and Latoya. What the researchers found was that some firms called back Black applicants considerably less, while race played little to no factor in the hiring processes at other firms.
Does Pennsylvania Tolerate 'Eye'-dentifications?
An identification after seeing a person’s entire face is itself a difficult task. The initial process of seeing a perpetrator and capturing a memory may be impaired by a multitude of factors—the presence of a weapon, high stress, poor lighting, whether the witness and perpetrator are of different races, the duration of observation and possible post-event memory contamination.
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) kAmW%wt r~}'t#$p%x~}X p7E6C >@C6 E92? 7@FC H66<D @7 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A\EC:2=\9FD9\>@?6J\DE@C>J\52?:6=D\5g36`e_6db4g_d_37fgg5fffa7cgb2ecQm@7E6? D@C5:5 E6DE:>@?Jk^2m[ k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^HHH]334]4@>^?6HD^H@C=5\FD\42?252\eh_acechQm244FD2E:@?D @7 =J:?8k^2m 2?5 6G6? 2 H2C?:?8 7C@> yF586 yF2? |] |6C492?
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments
After more than four weeks of often sordid testimony, accusations of lying and even a warning from Judge Juan M. Merchan to a witness to stop giving him the side-eye, lawyers in the hush-money case involving former President Donald Trump are expected to make their closing arguments on May 28, 2024. In a jury trial, opening statements are meant to provide jurors a narrative framework to organize all the bits and pieces of evidence and testimony.
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them
Secure transaction. Cancel anytime.
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor
21 hours ago Judgment day approaches. It’s been four-plus weeks of rolling in the muck in a Manhattan courthouse, with sometimes heated testimony and cross-examination featuring a tabloid publisher, a porn star and a former fixer for Donald Trump. And nobody involved is coming out looking good. But that’s not …
What to watch for in Trump trial's closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them
After more than four weeks of often sordid testimony, accusations of lying and even a warning from Judge Juan M. Merchan to a witness to stop giving him the side-eye, lawyers in the hush-money case involving former President Donald Trump are expected to make their closing arguments on May 28, 2024. In a jury trial, opening statements are meant to provide jurors a narrative framework to organize all the bits and pieces of evidence and testimony.
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them
By Jules Epstein, Professor of Law and Director of Advocacy Programs, Temple University Closing arguments tell the jury why the evidence is believable or not, how the facts are linked or not and, most importantly, why their decision to either acquit or convict is moral and just. Read complete article © The Conversation -
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) (THE CONVERSATION) After more than four weeks of often sordid testimony, accusations of lying and even a warning from Judge Juan M. Merchan to a witness to stop giving him the side-eye, lawyers in the hush-money case involving former President Donald Trump are expected to make their closing arguments on May 28, 2024.
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them Original
After more than four weeks of often sordid testimony, accusations of lying and even a warning from Judge Juan M. Merchan to a witness to stop giving him the side-eye, lawyers in the hush-money case involving former President Donald Trump are expected to make their closing arguments on May 28, 2024. In a jury trial, opening statements are meant to provide jurors a narrative framework to organize all the bits and pieces of evidence and testimony.
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) kAmW%wt r~}'t#$p%x~}X p7E6C >@C6 E92? 7@FC H66<D @7 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A\EC:2=\9FD9\>@?6J\DE@C>J\52?:6=D\5g36`e_6db4g_d_37fgg5fffa7cgb2ecQm@7E6? D@C5:5 E6DE:>@?Jk^2m[ k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^HHH]334]4@>^?6HD^H@C=5\FD\42?252\eh_acechQm244FD2E:@?D @7 =J:?8k^2m 2?5 6G6? 2 H2C?:?8 7C@> yF586 yF2? |] |6C492?
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) kAmW%wt r~}'t#$p%x~}X p7E6C >@C6 E92? 7@FC H66<D @7 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A\EC:2=\9FD9\>@?6J\DE@C>J\52?:6=D\5g36`e_6db4g_d_37fgg5fffa7cgb2ecQm@7E6? D@C5:5 E6DE:>@?Jk^2m[ k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^HHH]334]4@>^?6HD^H@C=5\FD\42?252\eh_acechQm244FD2E:@?D @7 =J:?8k^2m 2?5 6G6? 2 H2C?:?8 7C@> yF586 yF2? |] |6C492?
Is It Lay or Expert? Superior Court Has an Opinion (Maybe a Wrong One) | The Legal Intelligencer Original
Lay opinion testimony is tolerated because, frankly, it is hard to find the line between fact and opinion (“she is tall,” “they appeared drunk,” “the car was way over the speed limit”) and because lay witnesses should be comfortable speaking in normal, conversational, easily understood terms. To ensure there is a foundation for the opinion rather than mere speculation, there is the testing device of cross-examination.
A Character Witness Conundrum
Pennsylvania law, as does federal, permits a person accused of a crime to “defend” in part by proving their “good” character, limited to the pertinent trait. If the crime is robbery or assault, the defense is that the accused is nonviolent; and if the crime charged is forgery or theft, that the person is honest.
Has the Criminal Court [Defense] Expert Door Opened a Little?
Once upon a time, categories of experts were excluded from testifying in criminal cases on the antiquated and inaccurate claim that they “usurped the function of the jury” to determine credibility. The wall came down in 2014 with the seminal decision in Commonwealth v. Walker allowing experts on the vagaries of eyewitness perception and memory.
Justice Alito, Religion and Fair Trials
When a prospective juror says “I believe homosexuality is a sin” just like stealing, may that person be the “fair and impartial” juror? In a case brought by a lesbian prison guard whose claim is harassment on the job? The default answer should be “no.” Yet according to Justice Samuel Alito the answer is presumptively “yes,” as long as the belief is religion-based. He expressed this Feb.
Warning: Your Opening Statement or Closing Argument May Be Used Against You Original
We all know the admonition from Miranda v. Arizona—anything you say may be used against you. The question lawyers need to ponder—and adversaries need to pounce upon—is whether that same admonition applies to what lawyers say in their openings and closings, with the added concern that the warning will be anything you say SHALL be used against you, and you can’t dispute it.
Are Courtroom Persuasion Techniques Unethical?
With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas. View Now Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys.
Defense's Evidence Helps Plaintiff Score $9.6M for Crushed Leg
With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas. View Now Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys.
Trademarks That Create a False Association
At the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the trademark examining attorneys and administrative judges of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are tasked with reviewing trademark applications to ensure that they are in good form and that the applied-for mark is eligible for federal trademark registration. Examiners and judges are guided in their review by several policies including the Lanham Act, the federal statute governing trademark law in the United States (15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et.
No Advocacy by Elipsis: The Rule of Completeness
With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas. View Now Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys.
Commonwealth Court Rules Out-of-State Transit Agency Protected From Suit in Pennsylvania
The Commonwealth Court ruled Friday in a precedential opinion that New Jersey Transit is shielded from a negligence lawsuit in Pennsylvania. The three-judge panel held that two plaintiffs’ claims against the state-owned transportation system were barred by sovereign immunity. Want to continue reading?
Expert Testimony and Rule 403—Some Advice From 'Down Under' | The Legal Intelligencer
With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas. View Now Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys.
There's a New Leader in Philadelphia Law—And Here's What He's Prioritizing | The Legal Intelligencer
Premium Subscription With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas. View Now Team Accounts Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys.
Are 'Arrests' a Fair Sentencing Consideration?
Among the many issues to be consider by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this next year, one with low visibility but high impact is the question posed in this column’s title—when deciding what factors a judge may consider before imposing sentence, may a defendant’s history of arrests be considered?
Evidence, Advocacy and 'Carroll v. Trump': Weighing the Forms of Proof
From Data to Decisions Dynamically explore and compare data on law firms, companies, individual lawyers, and industry trends. Exclusive Depth and Reach. Law.com Compass includes access to our exclusive industry reports, combining the unmatched expertise of our analyst team with ALM’s deep bench of proprietary information to provide insights that can’t be found anywhere else.
Trial Advocacy Basics: One Line Lessons From the Experts
From Data to Decisions Dynamically explore and compare data on law firms, companies, individual lawyers, and industry trends. Exclusive Depth and Reach. Law.com Compass includes access to our exclusive industry reports, combining the unmatched expertise of our analyst team with ALM’s deep bench of proprietary information to provide insights that can’t be found anywhere else.
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them
After more than four weeks of often sordid testimony, accusations of lying and even a warning from Judge Juan M. Merchan to a witness to stop giving him the side-eye, lawyers in the hush-money case involving former President Donald Trump began to make their closing arguments on Tuesday May 28, 2024. In a jury trial, opening statements are meant to provide jurors a narrative framework to organize all the bits and pieces of evidence and testimony.
What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them
After more than four weeks of often sordid testimony[1], accusations of lying[2] and even a warning from Judge Juan M. Merchan to a witness to stop giving him the side-eye[3], lawyers in the hush-money case involving former President Donald Trump are expected to make their closing arguments on May 28, 2024. In a jury trial, opening statements are meant to provide jurors a narrative framework to organize all the bits and pieces[4] of evidence and testimony.
'Own It' or 'Appeal It': The 'Ohler' Dilemma Comes to Pennsylvania
Premium Subscription With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas. View Now Team Accounts Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys.
Should Pennsylvania abolish the death penalty? | Pro/Con
Opponents of capital punishment say the system is fallible and the outcomes are irreversible. Proponents say there are some crimes so heinous that justice demands no less.
Should Pennsylvania abolish the death penalty? | Pro/Con
Gov. Josh Shapiro has called on state lawmakers to end the death penalty in Pennsylvania and vowed that he would extend the moratorium on executions instituted by his predecessor, Gov. Tom Wolf. Support for capital punishment among U.S. adults has steadily declined over the decades, but most Americans still believe the death penalty is justified for people convicted of murder, even as a majority of U.S. adults understand there is some risk of an innocent person being executed.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Jules
Contact Jules, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack