Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Law and Contemporary Problems

2009

Evidence

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Law

How Much Evidence Is Enough? Conventions Of Causal Inference, David Kriebel Jan 2009

How Much Evidence Is Enough? Conventions Of Causal Inference, David Kriebel

Law and Contemporary Problems

One of the most important issues for science in the courtroom is the determination of causality. Like science in the courtroom, science in the regulatory arena can also bring a clash of cultures, misunderstanding, and controversy--especially when decisions must be made with some urgency with interested parties watching closely. Here, Kriebel discusses some conventions in the conduct of science and in the ways that scientific information is communicated to nonscientists that can make it difficult for judges, lawyers, regulators, and politicians to do their jobs making decisions about complex environmental and health issues.


How Does Science Come To Speak In The Courts? Citations Intertexts, Expert Witnesses, Consequential Facts, And Reasoning, Charles Bazerman Jan 2009

How Does Science Come To Speak In The Courts? Citations Intertexts, Expert Witnesses, Consequential Facts, And Reasoning, Charles Bazerman

Law and Contemporary Problems

Citations, in their highly conventionalized forms, visibly indicate each texts explicit use of the prior literature that embodies the knowledge and contentions of its field. This relation to prior texts has been called intertextuality in literary and literacy studies. Here, Bazerman discusses the citation practices and intertextuality in science and the law in theoretical and historical perspective, and considers the intersection of science and law by identifying the judicial rules that limit and shape the role of scientific literature in court proceedings. He emphasizes that from the historical and theoretical analysis, it is clear that, in the US, judicial reasoning ...


Trials And Tribulations: What Happens When Historians Enter The Courtroom, David Rosner Jan 2009

Trials And Tribulations: What Happens When Historians Enter The Courtroom, David Rosner

Law and Contemporary Problems

In recent years, historians have been brought into legal cases in unprecedented numbers. As the courts have tried to adjudicate responsibility for environmental and occupational diseases, history has played an increasingly central role in decisions that affect the cases themselves and in social policy regarding risk. In suits over tobacco-related diseases, asbestosis, radiation, and other toxic substances, more historians of technology and science, social history, and public health are being sought to provide testimony aimed at assessing responsibility for damages that have arisen years--sometimes decades--after exposure. Here, Rosner traces the use of historians as experts in litigation.


Essay: Conventions In Science And In The Courts: Images And Realities, Jerome R. Ravetz Jan 2009

Essay: Conventions In Science And In The Courts: Images And Realities, Jerome R. Ravetz

Law and Contemporary Problems

No abstract provided.


Irreconcilable Differences? The Troubled Marriage Of Science And Law, Susan Haack Jan 2009

Irreconcilable Differences? The Troubled Marriage Of Science And Law, Susan Haack

Law and Contemporary Problems

There haven't always been scientific witnesses: in fact, there haven't always been witnesses. In early medieval times, courts relied on tests by oath, ordeal, and sometimes by combat. Here, Haack provides a brief historical background to the use of scientific experts in law and then proceeds to discuss in greater detail the values underlying scientific inquiry, the uncertainty in the quest of knowledge and understanding, and the methods by which consensus is reached, even if that consensus is always tentative. She then contrasts scientific inquiry with the law's quest for "truth" in the courtroom and, particularly, the ...


The Arts Of Persuasion In Science And Law: Conflicting Norms In The Courtroom, Herbert M. Kritzer Jan 2009

The Arts Of Persuasion In Science And Law: Conflicting Norms In The Courtroom, Herbert M. Kritzer

Law and Contemporary Problems

Epistemology is important in the debate about science and technology in the courtroom. The epistemological issues and the arguments about them in the context of scientific and technical evidence are now well developed. Of equal importance, though, is an understanding of norms of persuasion and how those norms may differ across disciplines and groups. Norms of persuasion in the courtroom and in legal briefs differ from norms at a scientific conference and in scientific journals. Here, Kritzer examines the disconnect between science and the courtroom in terms of the differing norms of persuasion found within the scientific community and within ...


Science, Law And The Expert Witness, Joseph Sanders Jan 2009

Science, Law And The Expert Witness, Joseph Sanders

Law and Contemporary Problems

Expert witnessing is a particularly useful place to observe the clash of legal and scientific conventions because it is here that one group of people (scientific experts) who are integrated into one set of conventions are challenged by the expectations of a different set of conventions. Here, Sanders looks at how legal conventions affect the behavior of expert witnesses when they appear in court in both criminal and civil cases. He also reviews differences in scientific and legal conventions as they apply to expert knowledge and discusses two central reasons for these differences: adversarialism and closure.


Merton And The Hot Tub: Scientific Conventions And Expert Evidence In Australian Civil Procedure, Gary Edmond Jan 2009

Merton And The Hot Tub: Scientific Conventions And Expert Evidence In Australian Civil Procedure, Gary Edmond

Law and Contemporary Problems

Recently in Australia, common-law judges began to modify the way expert evidence is prepared and presented. Judges from a range of civil jurisdictions have conscientiously sought to reduce expert partisanship and the extent of expert disagreement in an attempt to enhance procedural efficiency and improve access to justice. One of these reforms, concurrent evidence, enables expert witnesses to participate in a joint session with considerable testimonial latitude. This represents a shift away from an adversarial approach and a conscientious attempt to foster scientific values and norms. Here, Edmond describes how changes to Australian civil procedure, motivated by judicial concerns about ...