In this article, Professor Bernstein argues that the misuse of scientific evidence is a growing problem in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and England. The problem is particularly apparent in these common law countries because they all rely on lay jurors as triers of fact to some extent. Courts and commentators in the United States and the Commonwealth have debated the extent to which the relevant rules of evidence need to be modified and modernized to deal with the "junk science "problem. Overall, there is a trend toward stricter scrutiny of scientific evidence in these countries. The article begins with a discussion of the development of the rules regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence in the United States. It then turns to a discussion of the emerging controversy over scientific evidence in the Commonwealth. The article concludes with a discussion of what Americans can learn from developments in the law of scientific evidence in the Commonwealth, and what Commonwealth scholars can learn from American law.
David E. Bernstein,
Junk Science in the United States and the Commonwealth,
Yale J. Int'l L.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol21/iss1/4