The march of science comes to a halt at courthouse doors. And yet in the time between trial and post-conviction review, knowledge will have advanced on many fronts. So the problem is how to reconcile standards of review that defer to jury findings and state court judgments when a sea change has taken place in scientific research.
Legal innocence, like scientific truth, is a stubborn thing. Neither narrowly drawn procedural rules nor the passage of time can alter it. Yet, reviewing courts are slow to embrace challenges to forensic conclusions. On the other hand, the scientific method fearlessly questions once accepted viewpoints and will declare them invalid notwithstanding legal precedent. Thus, post-conviction standards should take into account the need to reject judgments based on discredited ideas.
This content has been archived.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]
