Law Commons^™

Probability, Individualization, And Uniqueness In Forensic Science Evidence: Listening To The Academies, David H. Kaye

David Kaye

Day in and day out, criminalists testify to positive, uniquely specific identifications of fingerprints, bullets, handwriting, and other trace evidence. A committee of the National Academy of Sciences, building on the writing of academic commentators, has called for sweeping changes in the presentation and production of evidence of identification. These include some form of circumscribed and standardized testimony. But the Academy report is short on the specifics of the testimony that would be legally and professionally allowable. This essay outlines possible types of testimony that might harmonize the testimony of criminalists with the actual state of forensic science. It does …

Case Comment - People V. Nelson: A Tale Of Two Statistics, David H. Kaye

David Kaye

In recent years, defendants who were identified as a result of a search through a database of DNA profiles have argued that the probability that a randomly selected person would match a crime-scene stain overstates the probative value of the match. The statistical literature is divided, with most statisticians who have written on the subject rejecting this claim. In People v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of California held that when the random-match probability is so small as to make it exceedingly unlikely that any unrelated individual has the incriminating DNA profile, this statistic is admissible in a database-search case. …

'False But Highly Persuasive:' How Wrong Were The Probability Estimates In Mcdaniel V. Brown?, David H. Kaye

David Kaye

In McDaniel v. Brown, the Supreme Court will review the use of DNA evidence in a 1994 trial for sexual assault and attempted murder. The Court granted certiorari to consider two procedural issues - the standard of federal postconviction review of a state jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence, and the district court's decision to allow the prisoner to supplement the record of trials, appeals, and state postconviction proceedings with a geneticist's letter twelve years after the trial.

This essay clarifies the nature and extent of the errors in the presentation of the DNA evidence in Brown. It questions …

Experts, Statistics, Science & Bad Science, Curtis E.A. Karnow

Curtis E.A. Karnow

Articles, books, and other online resources relating to expert testimony with a specific focus on problems with peer review, bad science, and statistics

Visualizing Dna Proof, Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos

Nicholas L Georgakopoulos

DNA proof inherently involves the use of probability theory, which is often counterintuitive. Visual depictions of probability theory, however, can clarify the analysis and make it tractable. A DNA hit from a large database is a notoriously difficult probabi­li­ty theory issue, yet the visuals should enable courts and juries to handle it. The Puckett facts are an example of a general approach: A search in a large DNA database produces a hit for a cold crime from 1972 San Francisco. Probability theory allows us to process the probabilities that someone else in the database, someone not in the database, or …

The Hallmark Of A Champion—Or Not, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

Two decisions that just came down, one from the United States Supreme Court and the other from the California Supreme Court. The former is Hall v. Florida and the latter is In re Champion on Habeas Corpus. The Hall and Champion cases, although they do not cite each other, both discuss significant issues with regard to who is eligible for execution under the Atkins decision.

Hall and Champion perpetuate the myth that capital punishment can be imposed accurately and consistently. Additionally, both cases contain serious errors in interpreting science while suggesting that life and death decisions can be based on …

Dumping Daubert, Popping Popper And Falsifying Falsifiability: A Re-Assessment Of First Principles, Barbara P. Billauer Esq

barbara p billauer esq

Abstract: The Daubert mantra demands that judges, acting as gatekeepers, prevent para, pseudo or bad science from infiltrating the courtroom. To do so, the Judges must first determine what is ‘science’ and what is ‘good science.’ It is submitted that Daubert is deeply polluted with the notions of Karl Popper who sets ‘falsifiability’ and ‘falsification’ as the demarcation line for that determination. This philosophy has intractably infected case law, leading to bad decisions immortalized as stare decisis, and an unworkable system of decision-making, which negatively impacts litigant expectations. Among other problems is the intolerance of Popper’s system for multiple causation, …

A Scientific Approach To Scientific Evidence: A Four-Stage Rule For Admissibility And Scope, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

Scientific or expert testimony is often critical in criminal cases. The Supreme Court has established that the trial judge is the "gatekeeper" who is to determine what evidence is allowed before the jury. The current rules of evidence are not organized in a way that makes this task readily intelligible. This chapter proposes a more direct our-step process to accomplish the gatekeeping function.

"Introduction" (Chapter 1) Of Stories About Science In Law: Literary And Historical Images Of Acquired Expertise (Ashgate 2011), David S. Caudill

David S Caudill

This is the introductory chapter of Stories About Science in Law: Literary and Historical Images of Acquired Expertise (Ashgate, 2011), explaining that the book presents examples of how literary accounts can provide a supplement to our understanding of science in law. Challenging the view that law and science are completely different, I focus on stories that explore the relationship between law and science, and identify cultural images of science that prevail in legal contexts. In contrast to other studies on the transfer and construction of expertise in legal settings, the book considers the intersection of three interdisciplinary projects-- law and …

Lawyers Judging Experts: Oversimplifying Science And Undervaluing Advocacy To Construct An Ethical Duty?, David S. Caudill

David S Caudill

My focus is on an apparent trend at the intersection of the fields of evidentiary standards for expert admissibility and professional responsibility, namely the eagerness to place more ethical responsibilities on lawyers to vet their proffered expertise to ensure its reliability. My reservations about this trend are not only based on its troubling implications for the lawyer’s duty as a zealous advocate, which already has obvious limitations (because of lawyers’ conflicting duties to the court), but are also based on the problematic aspects of many reliability determinations. To expect attorneys - and this is what the proponents of a duty …

Book Review: Carl Cranor, Toxic Torts: Science, Law, And The Possibility Of Justice, David Caudill

David S Caudill

Carl F. Cranor’s Toxic Torts: Science, Law, and the Possibility of Justice is a sustained, comprehensive argument that the Daubert gatekeeping regime has tilted the playing field against injured plaintiffs in toxic tort litigation. More generally, Cranor joins those who argue that the Daubert regime has not fared well in practice. Complex scientific evidence is not handled well in trials because scientific methods, data, and inferential reasoning are not well understood by gatekeeping judges. Cranor’s goal is to help solve this problem by offering a detailed description of the patterns of reasoning, evidence collection, and inference in nonlegal scientific settings. …

From Gridlock To Groundbreaking: Realizing Reliability In Forensic Science, Jessica D. Gabel

Jessica Gabel Cino

In 2009, The National Academy of Sciences published a scathing report announcing that forensic science is broken and needs to be overhauled. Weaknesses have plagued forensic evidence for decades, and the resulting legal challenges have been hard fought but met with few victories. What we do know is a harsh truth: that faulty forensic science has contributed to the conviction of innocent people—and will continue to do so if the status quo persists.

In recent years, the reality of wrongful convictions has become mainstream through the work of the Innocence Project and other organizations. Out of the 305 DNA-based exonerations …

Defying Dna: Rethinking The Role Of The Jury In An Age Of Scientific Proof Of Innocence, Andrea L. Roth

Andrea L Roth

In 1946, public outrage erupted after a jury ordered Charlie Chaplin to support a child who, according to apparently definitive blood tests, was not his. Half a century later, juries have again defied apparently definitive evidence of innocence, finding criminal defendants guilty based on a confession or eyewitness notwithstanding exculpatory DNA test results. One might expect judges in such cases to direct an acquittal, on grounds that the evidence is legally insufficient because no rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet few if any do. Instead, courts defer to juries when they form an actual belief in …

Speaking Science To Law, Deborah Hussey Freeland

Deborah M. Hussey Freeland

involving a strong scientific consensus, the powerful qualities of scientific knowledge are easily lost in translation. Moreover, even prominent scientists who are committed to providing accurate information to legal fact-finders may suffer reputational harm simply for participating in an adversarial process.

This article analyzes the connection between law and science through the expert witness from the perspectives of epistemology and cross-cultural communication, focusing on the distinct ways in which scientists and lawyers know, value and express their knowledge. When a lawyer meets with a scientific expert witness, more confusion attends their interaction than either likely realizes. Linguistic translation is necessary--but …

Will History Be Servitude?: The Nas Report On Forensic Science And The Rule Of The Judiciary, Jane Moriarty

Jane Campbell Moriarty

For several decades, the prosecution and its witnesses have maintained that despite little research and virtually no standards, they can match a fingerprint, handwriting, bullet and bullet cartridge, hair, dental imprint, footprint, tire track, or even a lip print to its unique source (collectively, “individualization evidence”). Not only can they match it, they claim, they can do so often without any error rate. In the last few decades, with the help of lawyers and academics, litigants have challenged the underlying reliability of individualization evidence. Scholars in various disciplines have written about the startling state of individualization evidence, including its lack …

Forensic Science: Grand Goals, Tragic Flaws, And Judicial Gatekeeping, Jane Campbell Moriarty

Jane Campbell Moriarty

In the last decade, a number of scientists have published articles and testified in court, explaining the ways in which they believe that some of the forensic sciences do not meet reliability standards and that laboratories make errors. The explosion of exonerations resulting from DNA technology has raised questions about the accuracy of many forensic sciences and the quality of some laboratory testing. A substantial number of these defendants can point to erroneous forensic science as a contributing cause of their wrongful convictions. In the courts, increasingly, the parties have substantial and serious disagreements about the quality of forensic science. …