Mitchell Hamline School of Law Masthead Logo Mitchell Hamline Open Access Faculty Scholarship 2019 The Disappointing History of Science in the Courtroom: Frye, Daubert, and the Ongoing Crisis of “Junk Science” in Criminal Trials Jim Hilbert Mitchell Hamline School of Law,
[email protected] Publication Information 71 Oklahoma Law Review 759 (2019) Repository Citation Hilbert, Jim, "The Disappointing History of Science in the Courtroom: Frye, Daubert, and the Ongoing Crisis of “Junk Science” in Criminal Trials" (2019). Faculty Scholarship. 460. https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/facsch/460 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Mitchell Hamline Footer Logo Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. The Disappointing History of Science in the Courtroom: Frye, Daubert, and the Ongoing Crisis of “Junk Science” in Criminal Trials Abstract Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court decided one of the most important cases concerning the use of science in courtrooms. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , the Court addressed widespread concerns that courts were admitting unreliable scientific ve idence. In addition, lower courts lacked clarity on the status of the previous landmark case for courtroom science, Frye v. United States. In the years leading up to the Daubert decision, policy-makers and legal observers sounded the alarm about the rise in the use of "junk science" by so-called expert witnesses. Some critics went so far as to suggest that American businesses and the viability of the court system itself were at stake.