Evidence Commons^™

What Do Snowmobiles, Mercury Emissions, Greenhouse Gases, And Runoff Have In Common?: The Controversy Over "Junk Science", Linda A. Malone

Linda A. Malone

No abstract provided.

The New Pcast Report To The President Of The United States On Forensic Science, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

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 The Hall and Champion cases, although they do not cite each other, both discuss significant issues with regard to who is eligible for execution under the Atkins decision.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 …

Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient Test Scores And The Impropriety Of “Ethnic (Or Socio-Economic) Adjustment” In Atkins Cases, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

After attending this presentation, attendees will gain new information regarding developments in epigenetics which relate to the validity of Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) scores in determining intellectual disability for the purpose of eligibility of a criminal defendant to be executed if otherwise subject to the death penalty. (Complete Abstract at page 727 of the proceedings: http://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/2015/2015Proceedings.pdf )

Empiricism In Daubert And The California Supreme Court In Sargon, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

California has become a Daubert state. In Sargon v. The University of Southern California, the California Supreme Court held that judges are the “gatekeepers” with regard to expert or scientific evidence in this state, just as has been the case in the federal system (and many other states) since the decision in Daubert. Now that California is avowedly a Daubert state, it is important to understand why courtroom evidence – scientific, expert or, for that matter, otherwise – is properly grounded in empiricism. Empiricism is the theory that knowledge is derived from experience. Understanding this empirical basis for both Daubert …

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.

The Admissibility Of Bayesian Likelihood Ratios, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

As someone once said, “there are lies, damned lies and statistics.” Anyone who has tried a case where statistics are presented to the jury knows how powerful statistics can be. Jurors are generally not versed in statistics and are vulnerable to being misled. Ironically, judges may not be much better at identifying valid statistical analyses as opposed to bogus ones.

In this Criminal Justice column we will look at statistical analysis and its place in the courtroom. We will look at a recent decision of the British Courts and the implications for that type of thinking on American jurisprudence. To …

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 …

Close Test Scores And Epigenetics In Atkins Cases, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

In the Atkins case, the United States Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to execute a person who was intellectually disabled (mentally retarded). An IQ score is evidence that can be considered in making the determination of whether a particular individual is intellectually disabled. Certain prosecution experts seek to add points to the scores of African Americans as a form of "ethnic adjustment" making those individuals more susceptible to being put to death. This article examines the molecular biology issues that may have an effect on whether such points should properly be added.