Challenging Outdated Technology in Court and the Marketplace

The below article is a guest-authored pice to which the host of this BLOG contributed.  It identifies advances in two areas of science and raises concerns of what the consequences may be when science and technology advance but courts, attorneys and the marketplace don’t immediately catch up. Technology pervades virtually every aspect of modern American

“INNOCENT” OR “CAN’T BE SURE WHAT HAPPENED?” – – SCOTT TUROW AND THE CLOSING ARGUMENT

It is conventional wisdom that a story of actual innocence – there was no crime, the wrong person is on trial, the accused acted in self-defense – is the preferred modality in criminal cases.  Why?  An argument of ‘they can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt’ may come across like a schoolyard taunt – my

COLLECTIVE WISDOM: WHETHER TO OBJECT TO THE NOT-SO-QUALIFIED EXPERT

It is rare if ever that a proffered expert will be deemed so unqualified as to be precluded from testifying.  Why?  The threshold for expertise is decidedly low.  To use the Pennsylvania test, “[t]o qualify as an expert witness, a witness need only have a reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge, on a subject for which expert

“BULLET” POINTS

Does science support a firearms and toolmark expert from saying anything more than that “the firearm may have fired the recovered casing…?  Not ‘it came from this gun and no other,’ or ‘casings from the crime scene and from test fires of the suspect’s gun match,’ but a much more calibrated and restricted conclusion, evidence that is