Science, justice, and evidence

Courts in the United States have increasingly relied on scientific evidence and expert testimony to help resolve questions of fact. On 1 December 2023, amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 will take effect, further clarifying the court’s responsibilities as a gatekeeper for expert evidence. Th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 2023-11, Vol.382 (6672), p.741-741
Main Author: Mnookin, Jennifer
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Criminals
Evidence
Forensic science
Judicial system
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Courts in the United States have increasingly relied on scientific evidence and expert testimony to help resolve questions of fact. On 1 December 2023, amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 will take effect, further clarifying the court’s responsibilities as a gatekeeper for expert evidence. This update comes just a few months after the 30-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on how federal judges should evaluate scientific evidence. Daubert v. Merrell Dow was hailed as a victory for the use of scientific information in the legal system and certainly cast a much-needed spotlight on scientific evidence in the courtroom. But the nuanced and flexible nature of the “Daubert standard” has since led to substantial inconsistencies in its application. Most strikingly, it has had far more impact in civil cases than criminal cases. Daubert ’s core tenet—that scientific evidence introduced in court should be adequately valid and reliable—needs to be taken just as seriously in the criminal justice system and for forensic science as it has been in civil cases.
ISSN:0036-8075
1095-9203
DOI:10.1126/science.adm8834