Law Commons^™

Schultz V. Akzo Nobel Paints: “The Rest Of The Story” Reveals Limited Impact Of Expert Testimony Decision, Richard O. Faulk

Richard Faulk

Certainly, a number of lawyers from both sides of the bar believe that the Schultz decision is important. A review of the record in Schultz, however, reveals a relatively easy explanation for the decision—one that undermines its value as precedent. To understand why this is so, we must go back to the district court’s decision to grant Akzo Nobel’s motion for summary judgment and, with apologies to Paul Harvey, appreciate the “rest of the story.”

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 …

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

David S Caudill

No abstract provided.

Developments In The Law Of Scientific Evidence: The Admissibility Of Polygraph Evidence, Sheila K. Hyatt

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

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 …

Confronting Science: Expert Evidence And The Confrontation Clause, David H. Kaye, Jennifer L. Mnookin

Journal Articles

In Crawford v Washington, the Supreme Court substantially changed its understanding of how the Confrontation Clause applies to hearsay evidence. Since then, the Court has issued three bitterly contested expert-evidence-related Confrontation Clause decisions, and each one has generated at least as many questions as answers. This article analyzes this trilogy of cases, especially the most recent, Williams v Illinois.

In Williams, the Court issued a bewildering array of opinions in which majority support for admitting the opinion of a DNA analyst about tests that she did not perform was awkwardly knitted together out of several incompatible doctrinal …

Being Pragmatic About Forensic Linguistics, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article aims to provide some legal context to the Authorship Attribution Workshop (“conference”). In particular, I want to offer some pragmatic observations on what courts will likely demand of forensic linguistics experts and tentatively suggest what the field should aspire to in both the short and long run.

Speaking Science To Law, Deborah Hussey Freeland

Deborah M. Hussey Freeland

involving a strong scientific consensus, the powerful qualities of scientific knowledge are easily lost in translation. Moreover, even prominent scientists who are committed to providing accurate information to legal fact-finders may suffer reputational harm simply for participating in an adversarial process.

This article analyzes the connection between law and science through the expert witness from the perspectives of epistemology and cross-cultural communication, focusing on the distinct ways in which scientists and lawyers know, value and express their knowledge. When a lawyer meets with a scientific expert witness, more confusion attends their interaction than either likely realizes. Linguistic translation is necessary--but …