Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Law And The Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence Of Intent, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Rill
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
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
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 …