Law Commons^™

Technological Tethereds: Potential Impact Of Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence In Criminal Justice Risk Assessment Instruments, Sonia M. Gipson Rankin

Washington and Lee Law Review

Issues of racial inequality and violence are front and center today, as are issues surrounding artificial intelligence (“AI”). This Article, written by a law professor who is also a computer scientist, takes a deep dive into understanding how and why hacked and rogue AI creates unlawful and unfair outcomes, particularly for persons of color.

Black Americans are disproportionally featured in criminal justice, and their stories are obfuscated. The seemingly endless back-to-back murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and heartbreakingly countless others have finally shaken the United States from its slumbering journey towards intentional criminal justice reform. Myths about …

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 …

Adaptation And The Courtroom: Judging Climate Science, Kirsten Engel, Jonathan Overpeck

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Climate science is increasingly showing up in courtroom disputes over the duty to adapt to climate change. While judges play a critical role in evaluating scientific evidence, they are not apt to be familiar with the basic methods of climate science nor with the role played by peer review, publication, and training of climate scientists. This Article is an attempt to educate the bench and the bar on the basics of the discipline of climate science, which we contend is a distinct scientific discipline. We propose a series of principles to guide a judge’s evaluation of the reliability and weight …

Law's Treatment Of Science: From Idealization To Understanding, Nayha Acharya

Dalhousie Law Journal

Increasing reliance on scientific evidence in litigation has created a demand for discussions directed at enabling a legitimate interaction between science and law The article develops the notion ofprocedural legitimacy-that adherence to legal procedure maintains the legitimacy of the adjudicative system and its outcomes -and applies it to determining how best to admit and use scientific evidence. The problem of undervaluing procedural legitimacy is illustrated through a commentary on contributions to the science and law discussion of Edmond and Roach, and Haack. The author's thesis is that maintaining adjudicative legitimacy depends on procedural rules being applied as vigilantly to science …

Response To Haack And Edmond/Roach Articles, Nayha Acharya

Dalhousie Law Journal

I am grateful to Professors Edmond and Roach' and Professor Haack2 for their thoughtful replies to my paper, Law 's Treatment of Science: From Idealizationto Understanding.Much like my experience after reading "A Contextual Approach to the Admissibility of the State's Forensic Science and Medical Evidence,"' and Haack's contributions, 4 I have come away from reviewing Edmond and Roach and Haack's replies with a heightened awareness that the admissibility of scientific evidence is significant and complicated. Both replies have raised important concerns that have demanded further attention from me, which I turn to here. My response to Edmond and Roach's Reply …

Making Method Visible: Improving The Quality Of Science-Based Regulation, Pasky Pascual, Wendy Wagner, Elizabeth Fisher

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Scientific inferences are theories about how the world works that scientists formulate based on their observations. One of the most difficult issues at the intersection of law and science is to determine whether the weight of evidence supports one scientific inference versus other competing interpretations of the observations. In administrative law, this difficulty is exacerbated by the behavior of both the courts and regulatory agencies. Agencies seldom achieve the requisite visibility that explains the analytical methods they use to reach their scientific inferences. Courts—because they appreciate neither the variety of inferential methods nor their epistemic foundations—do not demand this level …

An Indirect-Effects Model Of Mediated Adjudication: The Csi Myth, The Tech Effect, And Metropolitan Jurors' Expectations For Scientific Evidence, Hon. Donald E. Shelton, Young S. Kim, Gregg Barak

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Part I of this article defines the "CSI effect," a phrase has come to have many different meanings ascribed to it. It emphasizes the epistemological importance of first describing the effect of the "CSI effect" as observed in juror behavior documented in a new study conducted in Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan, and then looking at causative factors that may be related to an explanation of those observed effects. Part II describes the methodology of the Wayne County study, provides a descriptive analysis of Wayne County jurors, and compares the jurors demographically to the Washtenaw County jurors who were surveyed in …

Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng

Michigan Law Review

For over twenty years, and particularly since the Supreme Court's Daubert decision in 1993, much ink has been spilled debating the problem of scientific evidence in the courts. Are jurors or, in the alternative, judges qualified to assess scientific reliability? Do courts really need to be concerned about "junk science"? What mechanisms can promote better decision making in scientific cases? Even a cursory scan of the literature shows the recent explosion of interest in these issues, precipitating new treatises, hundreds of articles, and countless conferences for judges, practitioners, and academics. To this literature, Professor Tal Golan adds Laws of Men …

A Study Of Juror Expectations And Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does The "Csi Effect" Exist?, Hon. Donald E. Shelton, Young S. Kim, Gregg Barak

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This article is the first empirical study of jurors designed to investigate the existence and extent of the "CSI effect." The authors conducted a survey of 1027 persons who had been called for jury duty in a Michigan state court during a nine-week period in June, July and August, 2006. This survey examined the summoned jurors' demographic information, television viewing habits, their expectations that the prosecutor would produce scientific evidence and whether they would demand scientific evidence as a condition of a guilty verdict.

This study of juror expectations and demands about scientific evidence in relationship to other types of …

Bayes' Law, Sequential Uncertainties, And Evidence Of Causation In Toxic Tort Cases, Neal C. Stout, Peter A. Valberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Judges are the gatekeepers of evidence. Arguably, the most difficult duty for a judicial gatekeeper is to screen the reliability of expert opinions in scientific fields such as medicine that are beyond the ken of most judges. Yet, judges have a duty to scrutinize such expert opinion evidence to determine its reliability and admissibility. In toxic tort cases, the issue of causation-whether the alleged exposures actually caused the plaintiffs injury-is nearly always the central dispute, and determining admissibility of expert causation opinion is a daunting challenge for most judges. We present a comprehensive review of the courts' struggles with the …

Daubert's Backwash: Litigation-Generated Science, William L. Anderson, Barry M. Parsons, Drummond Rennie

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In the 1993 landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court articulated its position on the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court reasoned that federal judges should rely on the processes scientists use to identify unreliable research, including the process of peer review, to determine when scientific evidence should be inadmissible. In response, lawyers and their clients, seeking to rely on such evidence, have begun funding and publishing their own research with the primary intention of providing support to cases they are litigating. This Article examines the phenomenon of litigation-generated science, how it potentially undermines …

Prescriptive Treaties In Global Warming: Applying The Factors Leading To The Montreal Protocol, Jasmine Abdel-Khalik

Michigan Journal of International Law

In order to combat the ever-increasing problem of global warming, developing nations need technology that will limit emissions while allowing for economic growth. This paper will first examine the problem of global warming. In Part II, the paper will explore the reasons developing nations currently are unable to reduce their emissions. In Part III, the paper will look at the factors leading to the success of the Montreal Protocol and examine the global warming debate in light of these factors.

The Implications Of Daubert For Economic Evidence In Antitrust Cases, Roger D. Blair, Jill Boylston Herndon

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doubts About Daubert: Psychiatric Anecdata As A Case Study, Christopher Slobogin

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Law's Scientific Revolution: Reflections And Ruminations On The Law's Use Of Experts In Year Seven Of The Revolution, David L. Faigman

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Banishing Ipse Dixit: The Impact Of Kumho Tire On Forensic Identification Science, Michael J. Saks

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Junk Philosophy Of Science?: The Paradox Of Expertise And Interdisciplinarity In Federal Courts, David S. Caudill, Richard E. Redding

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining The."Task At Hand": Non-Science Forensic Science After Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael, D. Michael Risinger

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining Reliable Forensic Economics In The Post-Daubert/Kumho Tire Era: Case Studies From Antitrust, Andrew I. Gavil

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Violence Risk Assessment: Scientific Validity And Evidentiary Admissibility, John Monahan

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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?

Federal Agency Treatment Of Uncertainty In Environmental Impact Statements Under The Ceq's Amended Nepa Regulation § 1502.22: Worst Case Analysis Or Risk Threshold, Charles F. Weiss

Michigan Law Review

This Note traces the judicial and administrative treatment of uncertainty under NEPA and supports the CEQ's replacement of worst case analysis with a qualitative probability threshold. Part I discusses the development of reasonableness standards in NEPA common law to define agency obligations prior to promulgation of the worst case analysis regulation. Part II reviews the worst case analysis regulation and its judicial construction. Finally, Part III outlines the amended regulation, which replaces worst case analysis with a probability threshold employing the rule of reason to limit EIS discussion to environmental effects shown through credible scientific evidence to be reasonably foreseeable. …