Skip to content

Miguel A. Méndez

Professor of Law Emeritus

Education

A.B. International Affairs & Latin American Studies, The George Washington University 1965

J.D., The George Washington University Law School 1968

Biography

Miguel A. Méndez is a Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of California, Davis, School of Law. He teaches courses in evidence, advanced evidence, and criminal law. Prior to joining the Davis faculty, Professor Méndez was the Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law at Stanford University, where he was on the law faculty from 1977 to 2009. Before starting his teaching career, he served as a legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Alan Cranston (1969-1971), staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (1971-1972), deputy director of California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (1972-1974), and attorney with Office of the Public Defender of Monterey County (1975-1977). In addition to teaching at Stanford and Davis, he has been a visiting professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, U.C. Berkeley School of Law, Vermont Law School, and University of San Diego School of Law. Since 2000, Professor Méndez has served as the evidence consultant to the California Law Revision Commission. He received his J.D. from the George Washington University where he was elected to the Order of the Coif. After graduating, he clerked for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

He recently published two books: Evidence: The California Code and the Federal Rules—A Problem Approach (Thomson-West 4th ed. 2008) and Evidence—A Concise Comparison of the Federal Rules with the California Code (West 2010 ed.). Recent articles include La Prueba de Referencia y el Derecho del Acusado a Repreguntar a Testigos Adversos en los Estados Unidos de América, 8 Iter Criminis 11—Revista de Ciencias Penales, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Penales (Marzo-Abril 2009), Forfeiture of Cross-Examination Rights in California, 20 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 501 (2009), Shifting From the Inquisitorial to the Adversarial Model in Criminal Cases: Is a Hearsay Rule Indispensible?, 5 FIU L. Rev. 13 (Fall 2009), VIII. Judicial Notice: Conforming the California Evidence Code to the Federal Rules of Evidence, 44 U.S.F. L. Rev. 141 (2009), and IX. General Provisions: Conforming the California Evidence Code to the Federal Rules of Evidence, 44 U.S.F. L. Rev. (Spring 2010).

In the last few years, Professor Méndez has begun to focus on the evidence systems of other countries, especially those of Latin America. He believes that scholars and policy makers have much to learn by comparing their rules of proof with those used in other countries.

Subject Areas

Evidence, Trial Advocacy And Practice, Criminal Law

Selected Career Highlights

  • Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford University, 1977-2009
  • Deputy Director, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., 1972-1974
  • Legislative Assistant, U.S. Senator Alan Cranston, 1969-1971
  • Law Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 1968-1969
  • Staff Attorney, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 1971-1972
  • Attorney, Office of the Public Defender of Monterey County, 1975-1977
  • Visiting Professor, University of Santa Clara School of Law, 1977
  • Visiting Professor, U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 1982
  • Visiting Professor, Vermont Law School, 1986
  • Visiting Professor, University of San Diego School of Law, 1990-1991

Selected Publications

The Victims’ Bill of Rights – Thirty Years under Proposition 8, 25 STAN.L.& POL'Y REV. 379 (2014).

Evidence — A Concise Comparison of the Federal Rules with the California Code, (West Academic Publishing 2014 ed.)

California’s Implausible Crime of Assault, 8 CALIF. LEGAL HISTORY 391 (2013).

Evidence — A Concise Comparison of the Federal Rules with the California Code, (West 2013 ed.)

Evidence: The California Evidence Code & The Federal Rules--A Problem Approach, (West 5th ed. 2012)

Evidence—A Concise Comparison of the Federal Rules with the California Code, (West 2012 ed.)

The California Supreme Court and the Felony Murder Rule — A Sisyphean Challenge?, 5 CALIF. LEGAL HISTORY 241 (2010).

Shifting from the Inquisitorial to the Adversarial Model in Criminal Cases: Is a Hearsay Rule Indispensible?, 5 FIU L. REV. 13 (Fall 2009).

IX. General Provisions: Conforming the California Evidence Code to the Federal Rules of Evidence, 44 U.S.F. L. REV. (Spring 2010)

VIII. Judicial Notice: Conforming the California Evidence Code to the Federal Rules of Evidence, 44 U.S.F. L. REV. 141 (2009).

La Prueba de Referencia y el Derecho del Acusado a Repreguntar a Testigos Adversos en los Estados Unidos de América, 8 ITER CRIMINIS 11 — REVISTA DE CIENCIAS PENALES, INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE CIENCIAS PENALES (Marzo - Abril 2009).

Evidence: the California Evidence Code & the Federal Rules—a Problem Approach, Thomson-West 4th ed. 2008

VII. Relevance: Definition and Limitations—Conforming the California Evidence Code to the Federal Rules of Evidence, 42 U.S.F. L. Rev. 329 (2007)

La Intoxicación en el Derecho Penal Estadounidense, 13 Derecho Penal Contemporáneo Revista Internacional 5, Editorial LEGIS Octubre-Diciembre 2005

Crawford v. Washington: A Critique, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 569 (2004)

Solving California’s Intoxication Riddle, 13.2 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 211 (2002)

California's New Law on Character Evidence: Evidence Code Section 352 and the Impact of Recent Psychological Studies, 31 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1003 (1984)

Evidence — A Concise Comparison of the Federal Rules with the California Code, West 2009 ed.

Evidence — A Concise Comparison of the Federal Rules with the California Code, Thomson-West 2008 ed.

Evidence — A Concise Comparison of the Federal Rules with the California Code, Thomson-West 2007 ed.

Evidence: the California Evidence Code & the Federal Rules—A Problem Approach, West Group 3d ed. 2004

Evidence: the California Evidence Code & the Federal Rules—A Problem Approach, West 2d ed. 1999

Evidentiary Foundations: Proven Strategies and Techniques [A Practice Treatise in the Form of an Interactive Cd-rom by Tim Hallahan Featuring Expert Commentary by Professors Edward J. Imwinkelried, Suzanne Mounts, and Miguel Méndez], Practising Law Institute 1998

Evidence: the California Evidence Code & the Federal Rules of Evidence—A Problem Approach, West 1995

California Evidence, and Supplements, West 1993

Prueba Pericial En Los Estados Unidos De América in La Prueba En El Nuevo Proceso Penal Oral, Lexis Nexis 2003, Rodrigo Coloma Correa, Editor

Comparing the Federal Rules of Evidence with the California Evidence Code—Proposition 8 and the Wisdom of Using Initiatives as a Rule-Making Device, 36 Southwestern L. Rev. 571 (2008)

Los Principios del Proceso Penal Estadounidense y el Caso De Michael Jackson, 11 Cuadernos Unimetanos 139 (Septiembre 2007)

VI. Authentication and the Best and Secondary Evidence Rules: Conforming the California Evidence Code to the Federal Rules of Evidence, 41 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1 (2006)

Teaching Evidence: Using Casebooks, Problems, Transcripts, Simulations, Video Clips and Interactive Dvds, 50 St. Louis U. L. J. 1133 ( 2006)

V. Witnesses: Conforming the California Evidence Code to the Federal Rules of Evidence, 39 U.S.F. L. Rev. 455 (2005)

On Teaching Criminal Law from a Trial Perspective, 48 St. Louis U. L. J. 1181 (2004)

IV. Presumptions and Burden of Proof: Conforming the California Evidence Code to the Federal Rules of Evidence, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev. 139 (2003)

III. The Role of Judge and Jury: Conforming the Evidence Code to the Federal Rules, 37 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1003 (2003)

II. Expert Testimony and the Opinion Rule: Conforming the Evidence Code to the Federal Rules, 37 U.S.F. L. Rev. 411 (2003)

I. Hearsay and its Exceptions: Conforming the Evidence Code to the Federal Rules, 37 U.S.F. L. Rev. 351 (2003)

Toward a Statistical Profile of Latina/os in the Legal Profession, 13 Berkeley La Raza L. J. 59 (2002) (Leo Martínez, Co-Author)

Character Evidence Reconsidered: “People Do Not Seem to Be Predictable Characters,”, 49 Hastings J. of Law 871 (1998)

Lawyers, Linguists, Story-Tellers, and Limited English-Speaking Witnesses, 27 New Mex. L. Rev. 77 (1997)

The Law of Evidence and the Search for a Stable Personality, 39 Emory L. J. 221 (1996)

A Sisyphean Task: the Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, 28 Davis L. Rev. 407 (1995)

People v. Ewoldt: the California Supreme Court's About face on the Plan Theory for Admitting Evidence of the Accused's Uncharged Misconduct, 28 Loyola L. Rev. 473 (1995) (Edward J. Imwinkelried, Co-Author)

Hernandez v. New York: The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, 4 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 193 (Winter 1992-93)

Resurrecting California's Old Law of Character Evidence, 23 Pac. L. J. 1005, Symposium on Victim's Rights (1992) (Edward J. Imwinkelried, Co-Author)

Diminished Capacity: Premature Reports of its Demise, 3 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 216 (1991)

The Civil and Common Law: Differing Approaches to Some Aspects of Credibility, 20 Stan. J. of Int'l Law 1 (1985)

Presumptions of Discriminatory Motive in Title VII Disparate Treatment Cases, 32 Stan. L. Rev. 1129 (1980)

"Memory, That Strange Deceiver", 32 Stan. L. Rev. 445 (1980)

Meeting Competition under Section 2(b) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 35 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 618 (1967) (Co-Author)

Evidence--A Concise Comparison of the Federal Rules with the California Code, West 2010 ed.