History of scientific evidence in U.S. Courts
Repository Citation Edward J. Imwinkelried, A New Era in the Evolution of Scientific Evidence – A Primer on Evaluating the Weight of Scientific Evidence, 23 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 261 (1981), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/ wmlr/vol23/iss2/4
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2267&context=wmlr
Excerpts:
…e polygraph, systolic blood pressure evidence. 9 Frye is a landmark because it announced a special, rigorous standard for the admission of scientific evidence.20 Frye excluded the systolic blood pressure evidence because the theory had not gained “general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. ’21 Under Frye, it is not enough that the prosecutor can find one qualified expert to vouch for the new scientific technique.22 The prosecutor has to meet a much more stringent test; the prosecutor must establish that as a matter of historical fact, the theory has gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific circle.23 During the 1970’s, Frye proved to be a formidable barrier to the introduction of prosecution scientific evidence. For examp
The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts
edited by Stephen E. Fienberg
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=furlBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=statistical+evidence+in+courts&ots=ZBFGBExlDd&sig=rnHIG6eUAROUcG7BuutbAJmBlyo#v=onepage&q=statistical%20evidence%20in%20courts&f=false
Provides recommendations to the court on how to make the use of statistics in the courtroom better and more useful for the court. The book provides case examples. mainly focused on statistics at the oeprational level
Use of Statistical Sampling in Courts
http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep07/jn.aspx
This article goes over a case involving Phillips Tobacco and how the court ruled that sampling could be used. It was written in 2007 so no doubt this has been adjuicated to the Supreme Court and back
Effects of Daubert on Expert Evidence Practices in Federal District Court of South Carolina
- Good concise, decription of the history of Frye and Daubert trilogy.
- Fry (1923) – general acceptance standard
- FRE – Federal Rules of Evidence (1976) provided more guidances on what is admissible
- Daubert 1993 (three cases) – set more strigent gate keeper role for the courts
- Also provides good tables of pre- and post Daubert impacts at the trial level. Shows the usage of different types of experts before and after D. Shows exclusions rates and reasons for challenges.
- Also interviews attorneys regarding those issues.
Is Proof of Statistical Significance Relevant?
David H. Kaye
http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=fac_works
Suggest that statistical significance testing is not relevant in a court room setting.
Bayesian Statistics and the Law – CMU Statistics – Carnegie Mellon …
Finally,. we describe two recent court cases involving Bayesian statistical evidence. Keywords: BAYESIAN DECISIONMAKING; EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY; …
Andler v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.
, __ F.3d __ (6th Cir. Feb. 29, 2012) (Nos. 10–3264, 10–3266)
Oliver Wendall Holmes Quotes
For the rational study of the law the blackletter man may be the man of the present, but the man of the future is the man of statistics and the master of economics.
– Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Rate and Discuss this quote
Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so.
– Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Rate and Discuss this quote
Discussion of (1946) Mt. Clemans case
In Mt. Clemens, the Court had declared this: In FLSA cases, if plaintiff-employees can’t prove how much time they spent doing under-compensated work because their defendant-employer failed to keep FLSA-required records, so long as the employee has produced enough evidence that he did the under-compensated work and the “amount or extent” of that work “as a matter of just and reasonable inference,” the employer must produce evidence of “the precise amount of work performed” or evidence to “negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee’s evidence.”
