Despite the political rhetoric, public confidence in scientists has “remained stable for decades.” You can bring this confidence into the courtroom through expert testimony based on the scientific method, i.e., physical observation and testing, not just untested hypotheses. Experts should be “hands on” when it comes to collecting and investigating physical evidence.
The courts are often asked to consider evidence based on cutting edge science and technology, but how is a court to know whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to make it admissible? That’s where the 3-pronged Kelly rule comes into play. When a novel scientific technique is potentially being used as evidence in your case, gear up for a Kelly hearing.
A criminal jury’s expectations of the quality of forensic evidence has changed greatly due to a juror phenomenon known as the “CSI effect.” This phenomenon is named after the popular police television series “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,” which depicts forensic science as the magical key to solving grisly crimes. Jurors who watch these shows may erroneously believe that they have great knowledge and insight about the use of this evidence, even when their understanding of forensic evidence is based on fictional crime scene technicians and the evidence they can get in their cases.