Noted recall: The goal is to describe, in just a few words, what the article is about. Additionally, if I think the article is particularly note-worthy (good or bad), I will comment on that. Compare this to a small sticky note, something to jog your memory about the contents of an article. Of course, if I miss the point of an article, or fail to find anything remarkable, that is entirely the fault of the reviewer.
Available at: https://www.amacad.org/daedalus/science-legal-system
This issue discusses several different areas where science and law meet. The opening essay by the editors gives a detailed introduction to the articles in the issue, more so than many other introductory remarks in other periodicals. This is less political than other periodicals I've noted.
Science, Common Sense & Judicial Power in U.S. Courts - Sheila Jasanoff
(read 2019/01/24)
This is a dense article that covers a number of technical points. The primary focus is how judges admit technical expertise on the basis of "common sense," and how that's been interpreted in different cases. Examples from environment law, intellectual property law, and constitutional law.
The Supreme Court & Science: Case in Point - Linda Greenhouse
(read 2019/01/25)
Looks at how current scientific understanding factors into law, with look into abortion law. "Undue burden" is the primary focus of the article and what that means. Discusses several different laws, notably in Texas, aimed at making abortions more difficult. Ultimately, judge ruled there was no scientific basis for the law so this therefore imposed an undue burden.
When Law Calls, Does Science Answer? A Survey of Distinguished Scientists and Engineers - Shari Seidman Diamond & Richard O. Lempert
(read 2019/01/25)
Survey to Academy of Arts and Science members about involvement in legal proceedings. This was a fun article with good analysis. The scientists surveyed generally don't get involved in a case due to time commitment reasons, but there was also some heartening ethical reasons such as declining to work for a patent troll, or not having the relevant expertise. For those with experience, the general sentiment was positive. Negative sentiment mentioned the focus on trying to win a case despite "the truth" of the facts, and related aspects of cross examination undermining credibility to win.
Law & Neuroscience: The Case of Solitary Confinement - Jules Lobel & Huda Akil
(read 2019/01/27)
Discusses emotional and mental harm. This was a good introductory article, I wish it was longer. Key points, emotional harm is a "second class citizen" to physical harm. With the rise of neuroscience, physiological changes in the brain are starting to be classified as physical harm. Some closing discussion about ambiguity, that some small stress will change the brain, but a large stress will change the brain detrimentally, and there's not a clear line demarcating the two.
Universities: The Fallen Angels of Bayh-Dole? - Rebecca S. Eisenberg & Robert Cook-Deegan
(skipped)
The Intractability of Inaccurate Eyewitness Identification - Jed S. Rakoff & Elizabeth F. Loftus
(read 2019/01/27)
Another article that ended too soon. Covers some factors that make eyewitness accounts unreliable, and some recent attempts to address these shortcomings in the legal system.
The Uncertain Future of Forensic Science - Jennifer L. Mnookin
(read 2019/01/28)
Discusses forensic science in general, and it's empirical foundations. Rather, the article is about the lack of empirical foundations; most important, lack of established accuracy and error ranges in almost all pattern evidence. Focuses on bite marks as an example. Long established now, but there are at least two dozen cases now where DNA evidence has shown bite mark identification to be incorrect. Starting to see academic insight into inaccuracy, but no judge has ruled bite mark evidence inadmissible, and one judge ruled it couldn't be challenged because it is long established. Discusses other uncertainty in pattern evidence (including fingerprints). There was a National Commission on Forensic Science started in 2013 to investigate and define these uncertainties until Jeff Sessions ended it in 2017.
Certainty & Uncertainty in Reporting Fingerprint Evidence - Joseph B. Kadane & Jonathan J. Koehler
(read 2019/01/29)
This is a rather dry report. The findings show that if an expert associates a set of fingerprints with an individual, the jurors' views do not change even after discussing errors and uncertainties (jurors' beliefs start strong and end strong). However, if scientifically accurate language is used like "the defendant cannot be excluded from the set of possible sources" then discuss errors and uncertainties, the jurors' beliefs start less certain and end even less certain.
Alternatives to Traditional Adversary Methods of Presenting Scientific Expertise in the Legal System - Nancy Gertner & Joseph Sanders
(read on 2019/01/29)
This article discusses two (often) conflicting goals of the courtroom, justice and accuracy. Not necessarily mutually exclusive. The adversary method refers to traditional presentation and cross-examination. This adversary method is frequently decided (by participants, observers) to be the most just, compared to alternatives. However, there are a number of ways this introduces biases, and real life jurors are typically very skeptical of expert opinion (supporting a side; more open to expert challenges). Other systemic flaws -- such as state-appointed defense not being able to afford expert resources -- but the key takeaway is that accuracy to "truth" (in some sense) is lost for the sake of justice. This article offers some thoughts on how this might be addressed with some examples from Australia.
Scientists as Experts Serving the Court - Daniel L. Rubinfeld & Joe S. Cecil
(read 2019/01/30)
This was a rather unexciting overview of three ways an expert can contribute to a legal case. The focus was on neutral expert opinion; increasing accuracy (as partisan experts tend to stray from established truth); when these neutral experts might be needed; some of the costs (mostly financial).
Improving Judge & Jury Evaluation of Scientific Evidence - Valeria P. Hans & Michael J. Saks
(read 2019/01/30)
This article is about a wonderful epistemological problem. Because the judge and jury are not experts, they must have an expert opinion given to explain the evidence. But the judge must arbitrate what expert opinion is allowed, though a non-expert. (There wasn't any philosophy in this article). It did offer some suggestions for improving scientific understanding of non-experts.