Science is not new to the courtroom, but recent advancements, such as the state of our knowledge of DNA, require judges, attorneys, and jurors to apply experts’ theories to case facts, in essence intertwining two diverse disciplines to achieve one goal - justice.
Click cover graphics to open the report.
Discussion of the Committee on Daubert Standards: Summary of the Meetings
Hanna, Kathi E. and Anne-Marie Maaza, Rapporteurs, Committee on Daubert Standards, Committee on Science Technology, and Law, National Research Council. National Academies of Science, 2006
NCSC Civil Action, Vol 5., No. 1, Spring 2006
The Changing Role of Judges in the Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Testing the Effects of Selected Jury Trial Innovations on Juror Comprehension of Contested mtDNA Evidence
Dann, B. Michael, et al. Funded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Dec. 2004
The Effects of the Daubert Trilogy in Delaware Superior Court
Waters, Nicole L. and Jessica P. Hodge. National Center for State Courts. Funded by Third Setor New England, Inc. on behalf of the Project on Scientific Knowledge in Public Policy.
Scientific Evidence in the Courts: Concepts & Controversies
Report of the 1997 Forum for State Court Judges. Sponsored by the Pound Civil Justice Institute (Previously known as the Roscoe Pound Foundation)
Special Issue of the Journal of Law and Policy: Science for Judges
Introduces a special issue that discusses scientific issues that judges confront on the bench.
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
