How Trial Judges Should Think About Forensic Science Evidence

Koehler, J. J. (2018). How trial judges should think about forensic science evidence. Judicature, 102, 28-38.

Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 18-07

29 Pages Posted: 12 Feb 2018 Last revised: 28 Aug 2018

Date Written: February 6, 2018

Abstract

It is undeniable that there are serious problems with the presentation of forensic science evidence in U.S. courtrooms. Comprehensive studies by scientific bodies find that many forensic sciences have not been validated and none have provided sufficiently rigorous scientific evidence that supports a claim of low rates of error. However, trial courts and appellate courts have largely ignored these problems and have done nothing to motivate forensic scientists to improve the scientific quality of their courtroom testimony. This paper provides trial judges with guidance on how they should think about and evaluate the reliability of forensic science evidence.

Suggested Citation

Koehler, Jonathan J., How Trial Judges Should Think About Forensic Science Evidence (February 6, 2018). Koehler, J. J. (2018). How trial judges should think about forensic science evidence. Judicature, 102, 28-38. ; Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 18-07. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3118745

Jonathan J. Koehler (Contact Author)

Northwestern University - Pritzker School of Law ( email )

375 E. Chicago Ave
Chicago, IL 60611
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
275
rank
102,444
Abstract Views
1,509
PlumX