Forensic Science: Complex Admissibility Standard for Scientific Evidence and Expert Witness\u27s Testimony

Abstract

Modern science forces the world to accept new theories and invention. Science has invented several tools, which are used in the legal system to dispute criminal cases. Scientific evidence and expert witness testimony have weight in the courtroom because those are scientifically proved to be true. Even though there are few case laws and Federal rule of evidence 1975, still the admissibility standard is complex which may lead injustice. This article examines the Federal rule of evidence, case laws and scholars’ opinion to address the complexity of the admissibility standard of scientific evidence and expert testimony. The first legal question raised relating the admissibility standard was Frye v. United States (1923) where the court ruled that any scientific method or practice must be generally accepted by the scientific community at large. The First Federal rule of evidence was adopted in 1975. In 1980`s scientific scholars began to questioning the authenticity of the admitted scientific evidence saying the kind of expertise regularly accepted as admissible by courts was, frankly, \u27junk\u27 of scandalous lack of dependability. \u27 To address the problem of junk science in the courtroom, the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma, Inc. (1993) In this case the Court addressed a new standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in the federal courts of the U.S. After examining the case laws and statues, it revealed US has legal system has complex admissibility standard for scientific evidence and expert witness interpreted by the judges and may serve injustice to innocent people