•  
  •  
 

Authors

Dick Thornburgh

Abstract

This 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.

Included in

Courts Commons

Share

COinS