A recent article about the utility of using brain scans in the courtroom as part of a criminal defense got me thinking. If something is scientifically possible, when should it be admissible?
If you're in trial and need authoritative cases fast, reach for Ohio Jurisprudence in the library or pull it up on Westlaw or Lexis (database identifier: OHJUR). If, instead, you want to articulate why the law should be changed and more broad scientific test results should be admitted, consider turning to texts that address science in the courtroom:
If you're in trial and need authoritative cases fast, reach for Ohio Jurisprudence in the library or pull it up on Westlaw or Lexis (database identifier: OHJUR). If, instead, you want to articulate why the law should be changed and more broad scientific test results should be admitted, consider turning to texts that address science in the courtroom:
- Forensic Evidence: Science and the Criminal Law
- Black Robes, White Coats: The Puzzle of Judicial Policymaking and Scientific Evidence (e-book)
- DNA: Forensic and Legal Applications
- The Future of Evidence: How Science and Technology Will Change the Practice of Law
- Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals: Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality