How Does Science Come to Speak in the Courts? Citations Intertexts, Expert Witnesses, Consequential Facts, and Reasoning

Citations, in their highly conventionalized forms, visibly indicate each texts explicit use of the prior literature that embodies the knowledge and contentions of its field. This relation to prior texts has been called intertextuality in literary and literacy studies. Here, Bazerman discusses the citation practices and intertextuality in science and the law in theoretical and historical perspective, and considers the intersection of science and law by identifying the judicial rules that limit and shape the role of scientific literature in court proceedings. He emphasizes that from the historical and theoretical analysis, it is clear that, in the US, judicial reasoning is an intertextually tight and self-referring system that pays only limited attention to documents outside the laws, precedents, and judicial rules. The window for scientific literature to enter the courts is narrow, focused, and highly filtered. It serves as a warrant for the expert witnesses\u27 expertise, which in turn makes opinion admissible in a way not available to ordinary witnesses

Ethics of Artificial Intelligence Demarcations

In this paper we present a set of key demarcations, particularly important when discussing ethical and societal issues of current AI research and applications. Properly distinguishing issues and concerns related to Artificial General Intelligence and weak AI, between symbolic and connectionist AI, AI methods, data and applications are prerequisites for an informed debate. Such demarcations would not only facilitate much-needed discussions on ethics on current AI technologies and research. In addition sufficiently establishing such demarcations would also enhance knowledge-sharing and support rigor in interdisciplinary research between technical and social sciences.Comment: Proceedings of the Norwegian AI Symposium 2019 (NAIS 2019), Trondheim, Norwa

Critical legal reading: The elements, strategies and dispositions needed to master this essential skill

Alex Steel, Kate Galloway, Mary Heath, Natalie Skead, Mark Israel, Anne Hewit

How much of commonsense and legal reasoning is formalizable? A review of conceptual obstacles

Fifty years of effort in artificial intelligence (AI) and the formalization of legal reasoning have produced both successes and failures. Considerable success in organizing and displaying evidence and its interrelationships has been accompanied by failure to achieve the original ambition of AI as applied to law: fully automated legal decision-making. The obstacles to formalizing legal reasoning have proved to be the same ones that make the formalization of commonsense reasoning so difficult, and are most evident where legal reasoning has to meld with the vast web of ordinary human knowledge of the world. Underlying many of the problems is the mismatch between the discreteness of symbol manipulation and the continuous nature of imprecise natural language, of degrees of similarity and analogy, and of probabilities

Forensic Face Recognition: A Survey

Beside a few papers which focus on the forensic aspects of automatic face recognition, there is not much published about it in contrast to the literature on developing new techniques and methodologies for biometric face recognition. In this report, we review forensic facial identification which is the forensic experts‟ way of manual facial comparison. Then we review famous works in the domain of forensic face recognition. Some of these papers describe general trends in forensics [1], guidelines for manual forensic facial comparison and training of face examiners who will be required to verify the outcome of automatic forensic face recognition system [2]. Some proposes theoretical framework for application of face recognition technology in forensics [3] and automatic forensic facial comparison [4, 5]. Bayesian framework is discussed in detail and it is elaborated how it can be adapted to forensic face recognition. Several issues related with court admissibility and reliability of system are also discussed. \ud Until now, there is no operational system available which automatically compare image of a suspect with mugshot database and provide result usable in court. The fact that biometric face recognition can in most cases be used for forensic purpose is true but the issues related to integration of technology with legal system of court still remain to be solved. There is a great need for research which is multi-disciplinary in nature and which will integrate the face recognition technology with existing legal systems. In this report we present a review of the existing literature in this domain and discuss various aspects and requirements for forensic face recognition systems particularly focusing on Bayesian framework

A Perspective on the Potential Role of Neuroscience in the Court

This Article presents some lessons learned while offering expert testimony on neuroscience in courts. As a biomedical investigator participating in cutting-edge research with clinical and mentoring responsibilities, Dr. Ruben Gur, Ph.D., became involved in court proceedings rather late in his career. Based on the success of Dr. Gur and other research investigators of his generation, who developed and validated advanced methods for linking brain structure and function to behavior, neuroscience findings and procedures became relevant to multiple legal issues, especially related to culpability and mitigation. Dr. Gur found himself being asked to opine in cases where he could contribute expertise on neuropsychological testing and structural and functional neuroimaging. Most of his medical-legal consulting experience has been in capital cases because of the elevated legal requirement for thorough mitigation investigations in such cases, and his limited availability due to his busy schedule as a full-time professor and research investigator who runs the Brain and Behavior Lab at the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”). Courtroom testimony, however, has not been a topic of his research and so he has not published extensively on the issues in peer-reviewed literature