Medical and scientific organizations and scientific evidence in U.S. trials: lessons from European legal theory.
Medical and scientific societies and organizations could help to solve the problem that the U.S. judicial system has with trials involving scientific evidence. This problem is exemplified by infamous trials in which opposing high-paid experts present contradictory legal theories based on the same scientific facts. The conflicting conclusions of such experts often confuse rather than clarify the issues for the jury and even the judge. Dissatisfaction with these "battles of the experts" in both civil (e.g., breast-implant litigation) and criminal (e.g., forensic use of DNA evidence) trials ranges from concern to harsh criticism. Many critics identify as models for reform the European legal systems, where scientific evidence is presented in a relatively objective manner by experts appointed by the trial court. Since they are often selected from lists of the faculties of universities, European experts are more likely to represent prevailing views of the relevant scientific community. Most American judges are reluctant to appoint experts, but there are some examples of their increasing use, and legal mechanisms and procedures exist that would allow this approach. Professional organizations of scientists and physicians could serve an important role in fostering the forensic use of neutral expertise by developing lists of experts for the courts; this would at least provide the potential for unbiased experts in complex cases that involve scientific and medical evidence. Such expertise could help American courts in their quests for scientific and legal truths.
Deftos
L J
LJ
University of California, San Diego 92161, USA. ljdeftos@ucsd.edu
D003431:Cross-Cultural Comparison; D005060:Europe; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D010819:Physician's Role; D012955:Societies, Medical; D012958:Societies, Scientific; D014481:United States