Evidence Commons^™

A Synthesis Of The Science And Law Relating To Eyewitness Misidentifications And Recommendations For How Police And Courts Can Reduce Wrongful Convictions Based On Them, Henry F. Fradella

Seattle University Law Review

The empirical literature on perception and memory consistently demonstrates the pitfalls of eyewitness identifications. Exoneration data lend external validity to these studies. With the goal of informing law enforcement officers, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, judges, and judicial law clerks about what they can do to reduce wrongful convictions based on misidentifications, this Article presents a synthesis of the scientific knowledge relevant to how perception and memory affect the (un)reliability of eyewitness identifications. The Article situates that body of knowledge within the context of leading case law. The Article then summarizes the most current recommendations for how law enforcement personnel should—and …

Scientific Evidence - An Introduction, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …

Law And Politics, An Emerging Epidemic: A Call For Evidence-Based Public Health Law, Michael Ulrich

Faculty Scholarship

As Jacobson v. Massachusetts recognized in 1905, the basis of public health law, and its ability to limit constitutional rights, is the use of scientific data and empirical evidence. Far too often, this important fact is lost. Fear, misinformation, and politics frequently take center stage and drive the implementation of public health law. In the recent Ebola scare, political leaders passed unnecessary and unconstitutional quarantine measures that defied scientific understanding of the disease and caused many to have their rights needlessly constrained. Looking at HIV criminalization and exemptions to childhood vaccine requirements, it becomes clear that the blame cannot be …

Experts, Statistics, Science & Bad Science, Curtis E.A. Karnow

Curtis E.A. Karnow

Articles, books, and other online resources relating to expert testimony with a specific focus on problems with peer review, bad science, and statistics

Dumping Daubert, Popping Popper And Falsifying Falsifiability: A Re-Assessment Of First Principles, 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 is ‘science’ and what is ‘good science.’ It is submitted that Daubert is deeply polluted with the notions of Karl Popper who sets ‘falsifiability’ and ‘falsification’ as the demarcation line for that determination. This philosophy has intractably infected case law, leading to bad decisions immortalized as stare decisis, and an unworkable system of decision-making, which negatively impacts litigant expectations. Among other problems is the intolerance of Popper’s system for multiple causation, …

Introduction, Miriam F. Miquelon-Weismann

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Legal educators increasingly use the classroom to import expertise from scientists and social scientists to better prepare law students to engage in specialized and collaborative fields of practice. Indeed, this project grew out of a paper course on Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases offered during the spring 2006 semester at the law school. Students heard from accident reconstruction experts, DNA scientists, forensic pathologist and medical malpractice experts. In February 2006, Dr. Aaron Lazare, Dean and Chancellor at the University of Massachusetts, addressed the law school on a cutting-edge legal theory from his recently published book, “On Apology.” Stimulated …

Transcript: One Advocate's 'Junk Science' Is Another Advocate's Evidence: Forging New Paths In Forensic Science

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

A Short Primer On The Admissibility Of Forensic Science Evidence In Tennessee: A Checklist, Bernard A. Raum

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

For decades, aircraft pilots have been using preflight and approach-to-landing checklists rather than relying on their memory to ensure that everything has been done in its proper sequence. The use of this tool gives pilots the ability to fly their aircrafts safely and according to an established procedure. Similarly, most trial attorneys employ witness checklists during the in-court examination of their witnesses to ensure that all of the witnesses' evidence has been fully presented and their exhibits have been properly marked and received in evidence. It is the intent of this presentation to suggest the use of another evidentiary checklist …

Scientific Evidence In The Age Of Daubert: A Proposal For A Dual Standard Of Admissibility In Civil And Criminal Cases , William P. Haney Iii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reliable Science: Overcoming Public Doubts In The Climate Change Debate, Michelle S. Simon

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article will consider the case for instituting a domestic agency that would evaluate the findings from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments to improve the credibility and legitimacy of those claims and conclusions for multiple purposes. The proposed agency would consider the robustness of an assessment's conclusions by construing the evidence through the lens of Daubert rather than Frye. Part I will outline the public debate about climate science-what the debate is about and why it exists. Part II will examine the current role of the IPCC-what it is and why it has not been successful in legitimating …

Federal Philosophy Of Science: A Deconstruction- And A Reconstruction, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.

Scientific Fraud, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

Although scientific fraud is rare, when it occurs, it needs to be identified and documented. This article discusses two of the most notorious cases in forensic science. Part I focuses on the misconduct of Fred Zain, a serologist with the West Virginia State Police crime laboratory and later with the County Medical Examiner’s laboratory in San Antonio, Texas. Part II examines the misconduct of Joyce Gilchrist, a forensic examiner with the Oklahoma City Police Department.

On Race Theory And Norms, Christian Sundquist

Articles

This article has been adapted from an address given at the Albany Law Review Symposium in Spring 2009. This article discusses the judicial acceptance of DNA random match estimates, which uses DNA analysis to estimate the likelihood that a criminal defendant is the source of genetic material that is found at a crime scene. Relying on race, these tests demonstrate how such a re-inscription of race as a biological entity threatens the modern conception of race as a social construction, and how those estimates should be rejected as inadmissible on a doctrinal level under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Forensics: Crime Scene Investigation Case Closed, Christina Parente

Senior Honors Projects

No abstract provided.

Motives For Idealizing The Pragmatic, Lewis H. Larue

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Non-Romantic View Of Expert Testimony, Lewis H. Larue, David S. Caudill

Scholarly Articles

The Daubert trilogy as a whole deflects attention away from abstract identifications of scientific validity (including the demarcation controversy aimed at rooting out allegedly junk science from the courtroom), and toward the application of expertise to the particular case at hand. That emphasis on application is reflected as well in post-trilogy scholarship, wherein we see three patterns or contours that both help quiet the debates and provide useful guidance to judges and lawyers. First, there is a pragmatic recognition, in various forms, that the focus should be on how science is being used rather than on science in the abstract. …

Beyond The Polemic Against Junk Science: Navigating The Oceans That Divide Science And Law With Justice Breyer At The Helm, Joelle A. Moreno

Joelle A. Moreno

Evaluating Scientific And Forensic Evidence, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Professor Underwood offers a critique of the present state of scientific and forensic evidence. In the context of discussing four challenges to the field, the author arms the practitioner with strategies and tactics for making effective use of scientific and forensic testimony.

New Developments In Scientific Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

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.

Junk Science, Daubert, And Ohio Rule 702, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

“Junk Science”: The Criminal Cases, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Judge Versus Jury: Who Should Decide Questions Of Preliminary Facts Conditioning The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence?, Edward J. Imwinkelried

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisprudence Or "Juriscience"?, Howard T. Markey

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scientific Evidence - An Introduction, Fredric I. Lederer

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Applying Lawyers' Expertise To Scientific Experts: Some Thoughts About Trial Court Analysis Of The Prejudicial Effects Of Admitting And Excluding Expert Scientific Testimony, James M. Doyle

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scientific Evidence And The Question Of Judicial Capacity, John W. Wesley

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Note And Indisputables, Ralph Slovenko

Cleveland State Law Review

Under the adversary system of trying cases, the litigant and not the trier is responsible for gathering and presenting the evidence. However, under the doctrine of judicial notice, the tribunal accepts the existence of certain evidence without the necessity of a party offering formal proof.