Science and the Law

The criminal justice system has not thus far been successful in preventing unscientific testimony. When forensic science evidence is challenged, judges rarely exclude it and usually rely on the fact that it has been admitted in older cases. The reason for this failure relates to the basic difference between scientific training and legal training. The scientific method involves observation, questioning, forming a hypothesis, gathering data through experimentation, analyzing that data, and drawing conclusions. On the other hand, lawyers, and lawyers who become judges, are trained to use the concept of precedent and stare decisis – that the answer to present questions can always be found by looking to the past. The law is always biased in favor of the status quo, not because it is the correct result but because it should not be disturbed. When new science tries to enter into the legal system, it clashes with the judicial system’s reliance on precedent. When it comes to admitting evidence, the burden of proof is always on the party that wants to admit the evidence, and for forensic science, this means that the prosecutor must prove that the expert testimony meets the requirements of Daubert or Frye , depending on the jurisdiction. Nevertheless, some courts shift the burden to anyone opposing forensic science evidence that has been traditionally admitted. Recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence may remedy that problem.