Professor Cheng's scholarship focuses on scientific, expert, and statistical evidence. His most recent article, forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review, is an empirical study of the degree to which federal circuit judges specialize in certain types of cases, contrary to the generalist ideal. Professor Cheng is a co-author of the four-volume treatise Modern Scientific Evidence (with David Faigman, Michael Saks and Joseph Sanders). His work has also appeared in the Duke Law Journal, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, and Virginia Law Review. Professor Cheng holds a B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton, and an M.Sc. in Information Systems from the London School of Economics, where he was a Fulbright Scholar. At Harvard Law School, he was the Articles, Book Reviews & Commentaries Chair of the Harvard Law Review. Following law school, he clerked for Judge Stephen F. Williams of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and he was the Searle Fellow at Northwestern University School of Law. He currently serves as the Chair-Elect of the AALS Section on Evidence
Articles
The Myth of the Generalist Judge: An Empirical Analysis of Opinion Specialization in the Federal Courts of Appeals, Stanford L. Rev. (2008)
Despite the frequent rhetoric celebrating the generalist judge, do judges really believe in the generalist...