The courtroom doesn't decide scientific questions it determines wether the information offered should be presented to jury and/or judge.  

     It may reject the evidence even if it has scientific validity.
    Sometimes people confuse justice and the justice system.

     If you want a verdict that fits your idea of what the outcome should be then the justice system can get in the way.



    Regards
    Bob C.     









From: Jill bennett gaieski <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 2006/12/06 Wed PM 09:46:58 CST
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: When Questions of Science Come to a Courtroom, Truth Has Many Faces

A great example of why the courtroom is not the proper forum for resolving
scientific questions.
The most compelling issue for me is whether the outcome, especially if it favors
the appellees (big business), will influence public opinion to the extent we no
longer hold  corporations responsible since the Supreme Court would have
sanctioned the notion that carbon emissions do not bare a "significant" causal
connection to the problem.
Clearly, the standards of proof are not just different, they are apples to
oranges poles apart. Hopefully, the expert testimony incorporated in the record
before the Supreme Court will be overwhelming in favor of the appellants, far
exceeding the "preponderance" standard.

Jill Bennett Gaieski, Esq.
Ph.D. Candidate
Anthropology (Historical Archaeology)
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia



-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 3:04 AM
Subject: When Questions of Science Come to a Courtroom, Truth Has Many Faces

Somewhat tangential, but this is an interesting comparison of scientific vs.
legal standards for evidence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/science/05law.html