Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past and Present

Authors

Edward K. Cheng

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Michigan Law Review

Publication Date

2006

ISSN

0026-2234

Page Number

1387

Keywords

evidence, expert, science and law, Frye-Daubert

Disciplines

Evidence | Law | Science and Technology Law

Abstract

For over twenty years, and particularly since the Supreme Court's Daubert' decision in 1993, much ink has been spilled debating the problem of scientific evidence in the courts. Are jurors or, in the alternative, judges qualified to assess scientific reliability? Do courts really need to be concerned about "junk science"? What mechanisms can promote better decision making in scientific cases? Even a cursory scan of the literature shows the recent explosion of interest in these issues, precipitating new treatises, hundreds of articles, and countless conferences for judges, practitioners, and academics.

Recommended Citation

Edward K. Cheng, Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past and Present, 104 Michigan Law Review. 1387 (2006)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/151