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