Law Commons^™

Commentary: Scientific Evidence - From A "Deferent" To A "Novice" Judge: Comments On Zoppellari's Paper, Marko Novak

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence Under Daubert: The Fatal Flaws Of ‘Falsifiability’ And ‘Falsification’, 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 “science” is? And then, what ‘good science’ is? It is submitted that Daubert is seriously polluted with the notions of Karl Popper who sets ‘falsifiability’ and ‘falsification’ as the demarcation line for that determination. This inapt philosophy has intractably infected case law, leading to bad decisions immortalized as stare decisis. Among other problems, is the intolerance of Popper’s system for multiple causation, a key component of toxic- torts. Thus, the primary …

Science Is Not Waiting For The Courts, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

The Forensic Science Community and the federal government are moving far beyond the courts in an effort to improve the quality of scientific evidence and expert testimony in the courts. Major events in forensics have caused a top to bottom reconsideration of what should count as expert testimony. Last month, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) convened the first set of meetings of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC). This is a forward-looking approach to forensic science.

The first OSAC meetings were held on February 16 and 17, 2015, at …

The Law And The Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence Of Intent, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Rill

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

This essay addresses the issue of judges deciding what scientific evidence is admissible. The primary focus is the admissibility of expert mental state testimony in criminal cases. The issue is addressed by answering two questions: 1) how does science work and 2) how does the brain work?

Scientific Evidence Under Daubert., John H. Mansfield

St. Mary's Law Journal

The controversy over the proper standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence is an argument over the value of a jury trial compared with a bench trial or decisions by scientists. The argument has both a constitutional dimension in the provisions relating to a jury trial, compulsory process and due process, and a nonconstitutional dimension in the ordinary law of evidence. In the recent case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court took a different approach, basing its decision almost entirely on an interpretation of the particular words used in Rule 702 of the Federal …

Analyzing Scientific Evidence: From Validity To Reliability With A Two-Step Approach., Renee A. Forinash

St. Mary's Law Journal

Throughout legal history, courts have wrestled with scientific evidence. Sometimes the courts admitted invalid evidence disguised as science. In the 1920’s, courts developed a very limited standard of admissibility for scientific evidence. Under the Frye test, a scientific expert’s conclusion was inadmissible unless the conclusion was generally accepted by the scientific community. Although this prevented “junk science” from invading courtrooms, it also protected invalid scientific evidence already present in the system and restricted using new, but valid, scientific techniques. In response, many jurisdictions developed more liberal evidentiary standards. The liberal standards averted the “cultural lag” for which Frye was criticized …