Changing the standard - what difference will it make?
A Texas house committee met last week to discuss changes for handling forensic evidence in court. In typical law professor fashion, a UT professor suggested that Texas adopt the Fry standard, instead of the Daubert standard which is currently used. To his credit, he admitted that the change may not make any practical difference. I concur. BTW - thanks to Scott Benson and Grits for Breakfast for reporting this.
I practice appellate law, and I have a special interest in this. Although I've read the cases numerous times I'm not all that sure what the difference between Fry and Daubert is, and I don't really care. No matter what the standard, the bottom line is that courts are going to admit scienfic evidence in criminal cases. The problem is not the test, but what the courts consider scientific evidence.
My friend - and head of the Innocence Project of Texas - Jeff Blackburn suggested that we reject the test adopted for "soft sciences" - which has been labeled the Nenno test. I agree that has some merit, and maybe thats the best we can hope for. However, I wish we address the question of whether the so called soft sciences should even be allowed in court. In my opinion the term "soft science" should raise a red flag.
I've written before about what science really is. We could solve a lot of problems by limiting scientific evidence to that which is based on scientific principals, and administered by persons with scientific backgrounds - i.e. not police officers. Maybe we could use a test - if two legitimate experts don't agree, its not science.
I know no court is ever going to go this far - and the result is we are going to continue admitting evidence without serious scrutiny. We would much better if instead of worrying about tests, we step back and decide what types of evidence we should admit in cases where a person's life and liberty are on the line.
