Most legal systems, including the British, have adopted a flexible, liberal standard for admitting scientific evidence. Although these systems consider the novelty of a scientific theory as a factor in evaluating the reliability of the scientific evidence, they do not follow a rigid rule excluding scientific testimony based on new theories and techniques. In the United States, however, most jurisdictions follow a rule automatically rejecting testimony based on novel scientific techniques. Reformers have severely criticized that rule, and the American courts now seem to be moving towards the British position on the admissibility of scientific evidence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology (1987) Rules For Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence. St Paul, West Publishing Company, pp. 79–146.
2.
Andrews v State, FLA., 57 United States Law Week 1077 (20 Oct. 1988).
3.
CappalettiM.PerilloJ. (1965) Civil Procedure in Italy. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 215–33.
4.
CarlsonR.ImwinkelriedE.KionkaE. (1986) Materials for the Study of Evidence. Charlottesville, Michie Publishing Co., p. 239.
5.
CasperG.ZeiselH. (1978) Lay judges in the German civil courts. In: Merryman HComparative Law: Western European and Latin American Legal Systems. Charlottesville, Bobbs-Merrill, pp. 720–25
6.
Chambers v Mississippi, USSC, 410 US 284 (1973).
7.
ClarkR. A. (1978) The changing face of the rule against hearsay in English lawAkron Law Review21, 67–72.
8.
Cobey v State, MD 45, Criminal Law Reports2289(29 June 1989).
GiannelliP. C. (1981) General acceptance of scientific tests — Frye and beyond. In: ImwinkelriedE. (ed.) Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York, Practising Law Institute, pp. 11–32.
Harper v State, GA., 249 Ga 519, 292 S.E.2d 389 (1982).
15.
ImwinkelriedE. J. (1983) The standard for admitting scientific evidence, a critique from the perspective of juror psychologyVillanova Law Review28, 566–70.
16.
ImwinkelriedE. J. (1981) Evidence law and tactics for the proponents of scientific evidence. In: ImwinkelriedE. (ed.) Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York, Practising Law Institute, pp. 43–8.
17.
KalvenH.ZeiselH. (1966) The American Jury. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 149–62.
18.
KaplanB. (1971) An American lawyer in the Queen's court: Impressions of English civil procedureMichigan Law Review69, 821–46.
LangbeinH. J. (1985) The German advantage in civil procedureUniversity of Chicago Law Review52, 864.
21.
LevineF.TappJ. (1973) The psychology of criminal identification: The gap from Wade toKirby. University of Pennsylvania Law Review121, 1079–133.
22.
MerrymanJ. H. (1978) The civil law tradition. In: MerrymanJ. H. (ed.) Comparative Law: Western European and Latin American Legal Systems. Charlottesville, Bobbs-Merrill, pp. 652–61.
23.
MoenssensA.InbauF.StarrsJ. (1986) Scientific Evidence on Criminal Cases. Mineola, The Foundation Press, pp. 3–4.
24.
ParkR. (1987) A subject matter approach to hearsay reformMichigan Law Review86, 51–122.
25.
PhipsonS. (1982) Phipson on Evidence. 13th ed., London, Sweet & Maxwell, pp. 556–9.
