| Science
Friday > Archives
> 1999
> October
> October 8, 1999:
Hour Two: Science in the Courtroom
Cliché time: the world is becoming more complicated, and more dependent on science and technology. That applies to just about everybody's job, from farmers to factory workers. So why not judges and lawyers, too? | Science often plays an important role in the courtroom -- DNA evidence, medical malpractice suits, and the like. But judges and juries often aren't conversant with the latest scientific literature. Enter the "expert witness," who is supposed to help set the record straight by explaining the science behind the case. But what evidence is "scientific?" Who should be admitted to the court to testify? And how can a judge or jury member tell whether or not evidence being presented is scientifically valid? |  | Once, the only test of science in the courtroom was whether or not the science was generally accepted by the scientific community. In 1993, a case called "Daubert v Merrell Dow pharmaceutical" went before the Supreme Court. In it, the court revised the standards on which scientific evidence was to be judged. It held that the trial judge
"must make a preliminary assessment of whether the testimony's underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue. Many considerations will bear on the inquiry, including whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The inquiry is a flexible one, and its focus must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate."
The decision places the judge in a "gatekeeper" role, controlling what is accepted as "good science" in his or her courtroom. How well has that process worked? We'll talk about science in the courtroom on this hour of Science Friday.
Guests:
David Faigman
Author, "Legal Alchemy: The Use and Misuse of Science in the Law"
Professor of Law
University of California-Hastings College of Law
San Francisco, California
Deborah Runkle
Project Manager
Court Appointed Scientific Experts Project
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Washington, D.C.
William Schwarzer
Senior District Judge
Northern District--California
Professor of Law
University of California-Hastings College of Law
San Francisco, California
Books/Articles Discussed:
Related Links:
AAAS: Court Appointed Scientific Experts
The Federal Judicial Center Home Page
FindLaw: Supreme Court Opinions
Editorial in The Scientist:: When is Expert Testimony Useful to Courts?
LII: Supreme Court Collection
The 'Lectric Law Library
American Academy of Forensic Sciences
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD)
- This segment produced by:
Annette Heist
Web producer:
Charles Bergquist
|