Science in the courtroom has undergone serious re-examination. Disputed assumptions about longstanding forensic methods have propelled legal practitioners into an era of heightened skepticism. Frye and Daubert have not taken us far enough.
DNA exonerations, the exposure of false confessions and faulty eyewitness testimony have shown that when there is certainty, there is no certainty. The latest national report on this problem underscores the ongoing concerns with forensic evidence and portends a shift in legal thinking.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
