Presenting examples of how literary accounts can provide a supplement to our understanding of science in law, this book challenges the view that law and science are completely different. It focuses on stories which explore the relationship between law and science, especially cultural images of science that prevail in legal contexts. Contrasting with other studies of the transfer and construction of expertise in legal settings, this book considers the intersection of three interdisciplinary projects: law and science, law and literature, and literature and science. Looking at the appropriation of scientific expertise into law from these perspectives, this book presents an original introduction into how we can gain insight into the use of science in the courtroom and in policy and regulatory settings through literary sources.

Issues spawned by the headlong pace of developments in science and technology fill the courts. The realm of the law is sometimes at a loss—constrained by its own assumptions and practices, Jasanoff suggests. This book exposes American law’s long-standing involvement in constructing, propagating, and perpetuating myths about science and technology.

Presenting examples of how literary accounts can provide a supplement to our understanding of science in law, this book challenges the view that law and science are completely different. It focuses on stories which explore the relationship between law and science, especially cultural images of science that prevail in legal contexts. Contrasting with other studies of the transfer and construction of expertise in legal settings, this book considers the intersection of three interdisciplinary projects: law and science, law and literature, and literature and science. Looking at the appropriation of scientific expertise into law from these perspectives, this book presents an original introduction into how we can gain insight into the use of science in the courtroom and in policy and regulatory settings through literary sources.

With the popularity of crime dramas like CSI focusing on forensic science, and increasing numbers of police and prosecutors making wide-spread use of DNA, high-tech science seems to have become the handmaiden of law enforcement. But this is a myth,asserts law professor and nationally known expert on police profiling David A. Harris. In fact, most of law enforcement does not embrace science—it rejects it instead, resisting it vigorously. The question at the heart of this book is why. »» Eyewitness identifications procedures using simultaneous lineups—showing the witness six persons together,as police have traditionally done—produces a significant number of incorrect identifications. »» Interrogations that include threats of harsh penalties and untruths about the existence of evidence proving the suspect’s guilt significantly increase the prospect of an innocent person confessing falsely. »» Fingerprint matching does not use probability calculations based on collected and standardized data to generate conclusions, but rather human interpretation and judgment.Examiners generally claim a zero rate of error – an untenable claim in the face of publicly known errors by the best examiners in the U.S. Failed Evidence explores the real reasons that police and prosecutors resist scientific change, and it lays out a concrete plan to bring law enforcement into the scientific present. Written in a crisp and engaging style, free of legal and scientific jargon, Failed Evidence will explain to police and prosecutors, political leaders and policy makers, as well as other experts and anyone else who cares about how law enforcement does its job, where we should go from here. Because only if we understand why law enforcement resists science will we be able to break through this resistance and convince police and prosecutors to rely on the best that science has to offer.Justice demands no less.

Since 1993, Supreme Court precedent has asked judges to serve as gatekeepers to their expert witnesses, admitting only reliable scientific testimony. Lacking a strong background in science, however, some judges admit dubious scientific testimony packages by articulate practitioners, while others reject reliable evidence that is unreasonably portrayed as full of holes. Seeking a balance between undue deference and undeserved skepticism, Caudill and LaRue draw on the philosophy of science to help judges, juries, and advocates better understand its goals and limitations.

Psychological research can provide constructive explanations of key problems in the criminal justice system--and can help generate solutions. This state-of-the-art text dissects the psychological processes associated with fundamental legal questions: Is a suspect lying? Will an incarcerated individual be dangerous in the future? Is an eyewitness accurate? How can false memories be implanted? How do juries, experts, forensic examiners, and judges make decisions, and how can racial and other forms of bias be minimized? Chapters offer up-to-date reviews of relevant theory, experimental methods, and empirical findings. Specific recommendations are made for improving the quality of evidence and preserving the integrity of investigative and legal proceedings.

In the early 1990s, sympathetic juries awarded huge damages to women claiming injury from silicone breast implants, leading to a $4.25 billion class-action settlement that still wasn't large enough to cover all the claims. Shockingly, rigorous scientific studies of breast implants have now shown that there is no significant link between breast implants and disease. Why were the courts and the public so certain that breast implants were dangerous when medical researchers were not? The answer to this question reveals important differences in the way science, the law, and the public regard evidence--and not just in the breast implant controversy.

There is no ignoring the impact of science on law today. New information in areas such as digital and multimedia sciences, canine scent detection, touch DNA and neuroscience is emerging daily. This thought-provoking book was written to provide you with a glimpse into a new dawn of the future of evidence and will help keep you on top of the multitude of new theories, policies, laws and rules that you face every day.

The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation together fund more than $40 billon of research annually in the United States and around the globe. These large public expenditures come with strings, including a complex set of laws and guidelines that regulate how scientists may use NIH and NSF funds, how federally funded research may be conducted, and who may have access to or own the product of the research. Until now, researchers have had little instruction on the nature of these laws and how they work. But now, with Robert P. Charrow’s Law in the Laboratory, they have a readable and entertaining introduction to the major ethical and legal considerations pertaining to research under the aegis of federal science funding. For any academic whose position is grant funded, or for any faculty involved in securing grants, this book will be an essential reference manual. And for those who want to learn how federal legislation and regulations affect laboratory research, Charrow’s primer will shed light on the often obscured intersection of government and science.

Forensic science has undergone dramatic progress in recent years, including in the areas of DNA collection and analysis and the reconstruction of crime scenes. However, too few professionals are equipped with the knowledge necessary to fully apply the potential of science in civil, criminal, and family legal matters. Featuring contributions from