Junk Science that wouldn't fly even on CSI

The always thoughtful Peter Nordberg has an interesting post this week about a Minnesota supreme court case involving the testimony of a medical examiner who claimed that he could tell that multiple perps had stabbed someone just by looking at the wound. As proof, he wielded a ruler and worked up a sweat stabbing a mannequin to show how much work it would take for one person to inflict the wounds in question. Naturally, the court allowed the testimony to stand, though with some comments about the dubious nature of the ME's conclusions. It's always amazing to me to read about this kind of stuff.

Tort reformers have been griping for years about "junk science" in the courtroom, but these days you'd never see something this bad in a serious civil lawsuit. Criminal cases, though, seem to be rife with them. The tort reform lobby doesn't seem too worried, however. The American Legislative Exchange Council, a tobacco-industry funded "free-market" think tank, is pushing "model legislation" in state legislatures around the country to combat "junk science." But a close look at their "junk science" agenda indicates that criminal cases aren't even on the list. Instead, the legislation is targeted as science dealing with global warming and other environmental issues in public school textbooks (i.e. global warming is just a theory); scientists who have the nerve to show evidence of repetitive stress injuries in workers; and limits on product liability suits over dangerous pharmaceutical products. Those poor schmucks sent to prison in Minnesota on the basis of the coroner's ruler demonstration are pretty much out of luck...

Comments

[Ted]

I've seen junk science that bad in civil cases, in a "sudden acceleration" case in North Carolina, where a motorcycle salesman was permitted to give a conspiracy theory how electromagnetic rays could set off the cruise control and override the brake pedal, even though he couldn't duplicate the effect in the allegedly defective auto in years of driving it around electical towers. North Carolina doesn't have Daubert, so it came in, and the quacks at the Center for Auto Safety publicized the resulting victory as an example of the problem of sudden acceleration, thus slowing public awareness of the importance of the safety measure of pressing the correct pedal when shifting gears. But, hey, profits for trial lawyers ahead of safety, right?

David Bernstein, the leading academic crusader against junk science today, just gave a talk at AEI presenting his latest paper, which criticizes several examples of junk science in criminal cases. I haven't met a single person who's called for stricter standards in admitting scientific evidence who believes in admitting into evidence the sort of silly CSI garbage some unethical prosecutors throw out there, and I don't think you have, either, so I'm not sure what your point is. Why not criticize the plaintiffs' bar for their success in opposing the stricter standards such that judges are reluctant to exclude bogus evidence when it results in criminal injustices for fear of setting a precedent that will injure this wealthy special interest group in civil cases?

[Jim Collins]

Maybe it is because there isn't enough money involved to put on a dog and pony show in a criminal case. Look at the Duke rape incident. One of the accused stated that it was fortunate that he had the resources availible to fight the accusation and he wondered how many others have been railroaded because they didn't.

When you have the possibility of millions of dollars changing hands, a few thousand for that show seems cheap.

[Bill Donovan]

I'm a bit baffled by your statement that, "the legislation is targeted as science dealing with global warming and other environmental issues in public school textbooks (i.e. global warming is just a theory)." Do you have evidence to support your argument? If so, where is it?

[Stephanie]

Here's a link to a good look at ALEC's model legislation making its way through the Florida legislature, which explains the impact on textbooks and science teaching in the classroom...

http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/03/junk-science-elimination-act.html