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!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 741
container_issue 6672
container_start_page 741
container_title Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
container_volume 382
creator Mnookin, Jennifer
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1126/science.adm8834
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2891752680</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2890404961</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c297t-ee0d624bc23a70a9eefe7416ca40ef69d235a54940be96746e9cdbfafc509f703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkMtLxDAQh4MoWFfP3mTBiwe7O3k0aY6yrA9Y8KCeQ5pOoEsfa9IK_ve2tCdPM8zvm2H4CLmlsKGUyW10FbYON7Zs8pyLM5JQ0FmqGfBzkgBwmeagsktyFeMRYMw0T8jdx7z2uD4Osa-mxrblGn-qchpfkwtv64g3S12Rr-f95-41Pby_vO2eDqljWvUpIpSSicIxbhVYjehRCSqdFYBe6pLxzGZCCyhQSyUkalcW3nqXgfYK-Io8zHdPofseMPamqaLDurYtdkM0LNdUZUzmE3r_Dz12Q2jH7yYKBAgt6UhtZ8qFLsaA3pxC1djwayiYyZdZfJnFF_8DPtpeeQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2890404961</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Science, justice, and evidence</title><source>American Association for the Advancement of Science</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Mnookin, Jennifer</creator><creatorcontrib>Mnookin, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0036-8075</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-9203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1126/science.adm8834</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: The American Association for the Advancement of Science</publisher><subject>Criminals ; Evidence ; Forensic science ; Judicial system</subject><ispartof>Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 2023-11, Vol.382 (6672), p.741-741</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2023 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,2884,2885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mnookin, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><title>Science, justice, and evidence</title><title>Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)</title><description>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.</description><subject>Criminals</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Forensic science</subject><subject>Judicial system</subject><issn>0036-8075</issn><issn>1095-9203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdkMtLxDAQh4MoWFfP3mTBiwe7O3k0aY6yrA9Y8KCeQ5pOoEsfa9IK_ve2tCdPM8zvm2H4CLmlsKGUyW10FbYON7Zs8pyLM5JQ0FmqGfBzkgBwmeagsktyFeMRYMw0T8jdx7z2uD4Osa-mxrblGn-qchpfkwtv64g3S12Rr-f95-41Pby_vO2eDqljWvUpIpSSicIxbhVYjehRCSqdFYBe6pLxzGZCCyhQSyUkalcW3nqXgfYK-Io8zHdPofseMPamqaLDurYtdkM0LNdUZUzmE3r_Dz12Q2jH7yYKBAgt6UhtZ8qFLsaA3pxC1djwayiYyZdZfJnFF_8DPtpeeQ</recordid><startdate>20231117</startdate><enddate>20231117</enddate><creator>Mnookin, Jennifer</creator><general>The American Association for the Advancement of Science</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20231117</creationdate><title>Science, justice, and evidence</title><author>Mnookin, Jennifer</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c297t-ee0d624bc23a70a9eefe7416ca40ef69d235a54940be96746e9cdbfafc509f703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Criminals</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Forensic science</topic><topic>Judicial system</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mnookin, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mnookin, Jennifer</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Science, justice, and evidence</atitle><jtitle>Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)</jtitle><date>2023-11-17</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>382</volume><issue>6672</issue><spage>741</spage><epage>741</epage><pages>741-741</pages><issn>0036-8075</issn><eissn>1095-9203</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>The American Association for the Advancement of Science</pub><doi>10.1126/science.adm8834</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0036-8075
ispartof Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 2023-11, Vol.382 (6672), p.741-741
issn 0036-8075
1095-9203
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2891752680
source American Association for the Advancement of Science; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Criminals
Evidence
Forensic science
Judicial system
title Science, justice, and evidence
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T22%3A46%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Science,%20justice,%20and%20evidence&rft.jtitle=Science%20(American%20Association%20for%20the%20Advancement%20of%20Science)&rft.au=Mnookin,%20Jennifer&rft.date=2023-11-17&rft.volume=382&rft.issue=6672&rft.spage=741&rft.epage=741&rft.pages=741-741&rft.issn=0036-8075&rft.eissn=1095-9203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1126/science.adm8834&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2890404961%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c297t-ee0d624bc23a70a9eefe7416ca40ef69d235a54940be96746e9cdbfafc509f703%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2890404961&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true