NCJ Number
64062
Journal
Judicature Volume: 63 Issue: 6 Dated: (DECEMBER/JANUARY 1980) Pages: 280-289
Date Published
1980
Length
10 pages
Annotation
THE NEED AND METHODS FOR COURTS TO CONSIDER SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS AS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE DECISIONS ARE DISCUSSED.
Abstract
COURT DECISIONS HAVE TENDED TO BE LIMITED BY A PRONENESS TO IGNORE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS IN FAVOR OF 'COMMON KNOWLEDGE' AND THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF JUDGES. WHEN SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS HAVE BEEN USED, COURTS HAVE OFTEN INTERPRETED THEM INCOMPETENTLY. FURTHER, BRIEFS AND RECORDS USED BEFORE THE COURT OFTEN NEGLECT SOCIAL RESEARCH RESULTS, AND THE TRADITIONS OF THE ADVERSARY PROCESS MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO GO BEYOND THE RECORD IN SEARCH OF INFORMATION. COURTS CANNOT RESPONSIBLY DISCHARGE THEIR DUTIES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES. TO DO THIS, THEY MUST TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN FACT-FINDING. COURTS CAN HELP ASSURE THAT RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE CONSIDERED IN COURT DELIBERATIONS. THEY CAN MAKE IT KNOWN TO THE BAR THAT COMPLETE AND RESPONSIBLE TREATMENTS OF SOCIAL FACT ISSUES HAVE PRIORITY BEFORE THE COURT, AND CAN ASK COUNSEL TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL BRIEFS WHEN APPROPRIATE SOCIAL RESEARCH EVIDENCE IS LACKING. APPELLATE COURTS CAN RETURN CASES TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDINGS. A COURT MAY GO BEYOND THE PARAMETERS OF THE ADVERSARY PROCESS BY HAVING JUDGES AND OTHER LEGAL SPECIALISTS SEARCH THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. IT CAN DELEGATE THE SOCIAL FACT-FINDING TASK TO A BODY OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS REPRESENTING THE DISCIPLINES RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE. THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE AND REBUT ANY SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS PRESENTED TO THE COURT WOULD NECESSARILY BE PART OF THE ADVERSARIAL FORMAT. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)