Michigan Law Review
evidence, expert, science and law, Frye-Daubert
Evidence | Law | Science and Technology Law
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.
Edward K. Cheng,
Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past and Present, 104 Michigan Law Review. 1387
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/151