Evidence Commons^™

Cabining Judicial Discretion Over Forensic Evidence With A New Special Relevance Rule, Emma F.E. Shoucair

Michigan Law Review

Modern forensic evidence suffers from a number of flaws, including insufficient scientific grounding, exaggerated testimony, lack of uniform best practices, and an inefficacious standard for admission that regularly allows judges to admit scientifically unsound evidence. This Note discusses these problems, lays out the current landscape of forensic science reform, and suggests the addition of a new special relevance rule to the Federal Rules of Evidence (and similar rules in state evidence codes). This proposed rule would cabin judicial discretion to admit non-DNA forensic evidence by barring prosecutorial introduction of such evidence in criminal trials absent a competing defense expert or …

Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science In The Courtroom, John F. Baughman

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom by Peter W. Huber

The Psychiatrist As An Expert Witness: Some Ruminations And Speculations, Bernard L. Diamond, David W. Louisell

Michigan Law Review

Consider the difference between the expert testimony of an orthopedic surgeon in a personal injury suit and the testimony of a psychiatrist in a murder trial in which some elements of the mens rea are at issue. In both instances an expert opinion is received in evidence, providing the trier of fact with technical, specialized information which must, or should, be available in order to permit a rational decision-making process. Well-established rules govern the nature of expert evidence and its mode of presentation. In legal theory, the orthopedic surgeon and the psychiatrist are both experts-physicians-who perform comparable functions in the …

Social Scientists Take The Stand: A Review And Appraisal Of Their Testimony In Litigation, Jack Greenberg

Michigan Law Review

"How to inform the judicial mind, as you know, is one of the most complicated problems,'' said Justice Frankfurter during argument of the school segregation cases. And as law deals more and more with issues of great public consequence the judiciary's need for knowledge increases. Much of this knowledge is within the realm of what are called the social sciences.

Although jurisprudents and social scientists have long complained of a gulf between law and social science, little notice has been given to the recent, recurrent collaboration between the two at the trial level. In a variety of cases social scientists' …