damocles Posted October 8, 2005 Report Posted October 8, 2005 http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051008/bob8.asp Benched ScienceIncreasingly, judges decide what science—if any—a jury hearsJanet Raloff In television courtroom dramas, prosecutors and defendants' attorneys parade expert witnesses who dazzle juries with insightful forensic analyses, new theories of mental incapacity, data suggesting dangerous flaws in technology, and assessments as to whether an individual's sickness traces to toxic chemicals. In real life, however, many such scientific experts—and the data that their opinions draw upon—never make it to a jury. http://<body of article> In summary the U.S. Supreme Court has given presiding judges the authority to screen expert witnesses' testimony as to its applicability to the case over which the judge adjudicates. At first read; this seems like a simple extension of the rules of evidence authority, that a judge has in legal proceedings. The decisions, (three cases reviewed) simply say, that only evidence(the expert testimony) aquired under due process, that is germain to the issue tried, is admissible. The judge is the final authority in the case as to what is germain and admissible "expert testimony" under the rulings. That could be a problem. What if the judge is a whackjob flatearther who decides that "expert" Newtonian laws of motion testimony is not germain to an automobile collision insurance case? We do have judges, who are that stupid, sitting and serving. Quote
UncleAl Posted October 8, 2005 Report Posted October 8, 2005 Jurisprudence is about presentation within a framework of established rules, not about objective reality. The US court system has three goals, 1) The right people must win (commercial and legislative litigations).2) If financial levies are involved, the State must collect (traffic court).3) Small stuff like murder and rape is ignored as throwaway entertainment for the masses. Above all, justice must be expensive to control the gate. How much justice can you afford? Quote
HydrogenBond Posted October 8, 2005 Report Posted October 8, 2005 The fact that many cases, with two different goals, will both use expert testimony to make the evidence fit their position, implies that science can also be subjective while trying to objective. The judge is trying to filter out the hired guns of science so things state objective science. Quote
damocles Posted October 8, 2005 Author Report Posted October 8, 2005 The fact that many cases, with two different goals, will both use expert testimony to make the evidence fit their position, implies that science can also be subjective while trying to objective. The judge is trying to filter out the hired guns of science so things state objective science. That is the jury's job. By the way, Uncle Al is correct about the law in general, and the U.S. legal system in the specific. This expert witness screening by judges is just one more legal filter trap to screen out information, and keep objective truth seeking out of the hands of a ramdomly selected group of twelve people. When was the last time a jury was picked by a random numbers generator or names stuffed into a hat and pulled out? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.