{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Voices at Temple","provider_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices","title":"When Must Lawyers Learn Science? - Voices at Temple","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UIuIYYzcme\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/when-must-lawyers-learn-science\/\">When Must Lawyers Learn Science?<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/when-must-lawyers-learn-science\/embed\/#?secret=UIuIYYzcme\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;When Must Lawyers Learn Science?&#8221; &#8212; Voices at Temple\" data-secret=\"UIuIYYzcme\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Microscope.png","thumbnail_width":840,"thumbnail_height":560,"description":"How should judges evaluate lawyers\u2019 alleged mishandling of forensic science evidence when the challenge is brought years after the trial? One recent United States Supreme Court decision grapples with this; and this article contextualizes that holding, analyzes its weaknesses, and suggests some factors for judges to weigh. In criminal cases, the importance of science (and understanding the limits of science) cannot be gainsaid. The statistics are clear: in a review of homicide cases in Cleveland, Ohio, the clearance rate was higher [63.1%] for cases with probative results \u2014 either matches or exclusions \u2014 than in cases without such evidence [56.3%], and the average sentence imposed was higher in the former category. Yet there is a confounding problem \u2013 the consumers of forensic evidence have little or no scientific training, either at the college level or \u2018on the job.\u2019 Perhaps 5% of lawyers [and judges] studied science, a number presented in research papers and confirmed repeatedly by polling attendees at legal education conferences. And the consequences are severe. The scientific illiteracy of lawyers was highlighted in &hellip;"}