Add to ORKGThis article argues that many judges lack the capacity to distinguish between experts witnesses who make use of rigorous scientific research and those who rely on junk science - conclusions based on insufficient research. It notes that judicial standards for admissibility of expert testimony are not sufficient to prevent the introduction of junk science in to the courtroom. It concludes with a suggestion for a more rigorous process for vetting scientific evidence that is admitted in court
There has been an increase in the recognition of the role of human cognition within the field of fo...
Law and science have long had a strained relationship although their tendency to ‘clash’ may have be...
This article approaches expert opinion evidence from a scientific, specifically cognitive science, p...
In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard agains...
Critics of the tort system have condemned courts for their alleged leniency in admitting scientific ...
Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determine...
This article considers the question: What are the legal and ethical responsibilities of attorneys w...
Conflicts of interest have significant implications for the reliability of scientific expert testimo...
In its famous opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the U.S. Supreme Court took a major...
Modern science forces the world to accept new theories and invention. Science has invented several t...
federal judges were directed to examine the scientific method underlying expert evidence and admit t...
In response to the claim that many judges are deficient in their understanding of scientific methodo...
This article discusses the role of social science in legal proceedings with special attention to the...
My focus is on an apparent trend at the intersection of the fields of evidentiary standards for expe...
As the forensic science industry grows, so do the scandals – overburdened crime labs, unverified sci...
There has been an increase in the recognition of the role of human cognition within the field of fo...
Law and science have long had a strained relationship although their tendency to ‘clash’ may have be...
This article approaches expert opinion evidence from a scientific, specifically cognitive science, p...
In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard agains...
Critics of the tort system have condemned courts for their alleged leniency in admitting scientific ...
Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determine...
This article considers the question: What are the legal and ethical responsibilities of attorneys w...
Conflicts of interest have significant implications for the reliability of scientific expert testimo...
In its famous opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the U.S. Supreme Court took a major...
Modern science forces the world to accept new theories and invention. Science has invented several t...
federal judges were directed to examine the scientific method underlying expert evidence and admit t...
In response to the claim that many judges are deficient in their understanding of scientific methodo...
This article discusses the role of social science in legal proceedings with special attention to the...
My focus is on an apparent trend at the intersection of the fields of evidentiary standards for expe...
As the forensic science industry grows, so do the scandals – overburdened crime labs, unverified sci...
There has been an increase in the recognition of the role of human cognition within the field of fo...
Law and science have long had a strained relationship although their tendency to ‘clash’ may have be...
This article approaches expert opinion evidence from a scientific, specifically cognitive science, p...