http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051008/bob8.asp
Quote:
Benched Science
Increasingly, judges decide what science—if any—a jury hears
Janet Raloff
In television courtroom dramas, prosecutors and defendants' attorneys parade expert witnesses who dazzle juries with insightful forensic analyses, new theories of mental incapacity, data suggesting dangerous flaws in technology, and assessments as to whether an individual's sickness traces to toxic chemicals. In real life, however, many such scientific experts—and the data that their opinions draw upon—never make it to a jury.
<body of article>
|
In summary the U.S. Supreme Court has given presiding judges the authority to screen expert witnesses' testimony as to its applicability to the case over which the judge adjudicates. At first read; this seems like a simple extension of the rules of evidence authority, that a judge has in legal proceedings. The decisions, (three cases reviewed) simply say, that only evidence(the expert testimony) aquired under due process, that is germain to the issue tried, is admissible. The judge is the final authority in the case as to what is germain and admissible "expert testimony" under the rulings.
That could be a problem.
What if the judge is a whackjob flatearther who decides that "expert" Newtonian laws of motion testimony is not germain to an automobile collision insurance case?
We do have judges, who are that stupid, sitting and serving.
