Judges’ College puts together #PCAST forensics and FRE 702 rules 

The National Judicial College

The National JudicialCollege dives deep into explaining how overblown “feature-comparing” experts and actually ANYONE attesting to their “science” can be corralled through using rules within the Federal Rules of Evidence.

I think they must have read from all the ABFO bitemarker cases to have compiled what is contained in this lesson plan for judges.

Taking from transcripts used in actual cases, the Judicial College takes a hard stance against forensic statements such as:

“Statements suggesting or implying greater certainty are not scientifically valid and should not be permitted. In particular, courts should never permit scientifically indefensible claims such as: “zero,” “vanishingly small,” “essentially zero,” “negligible,” “minimal,” or “microscopic” error rates; “100 percent certainty” or proof “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty;” identification “to the exclusion of all other sources;” or a chance of error so remote as to be a “practical impossibility.” ”

STOP: Read this Before Admitting ANY Forensic Evidence! | The National Judicial College 

 

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in AAFS, forensic science reform and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s