10th Anniversary Of Supreme Court's Daubert Ruling

scraggly codger writes "Slashdot readers might find it interesting to learn about the ongoing legal controversy over the role of federal judges as gatekeepers for scientific evidence in civil and criminal litigation in the US. Ten years ago the Supreme Court provided guidelines for admissibility of scientific evidence in the Daubert ruling. Readers might find it hard to believe from the text of the ruling, but the result has been a huge increase in the power of judges to exclude scientific evidence from presentation to juries, based on what many scientists and other observers consider an incredibly naive (or perhaps merely self-serving) model of science. There's been a spate of news stories covering the topic, perhaps the most prominent in the WSJ of Friday, 27 June, "'Junk Science' Ban Also Keeps Jurors From Sound Evidence" (regrettably not freely available online). I particularly recommend Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You've Never Heard Of."

Comments

Peter Huber on science and the law

[the end of britain]

Peter Huber (engineering PHD from MIT; law degree from Harvard) has an interesting book out that deals with this issue:

http://www.phuber.com/huber/js/js.htm

You may also find interesting materials on his web site:

http://www.phuber.com/