"Junk Science": The Criminal Cases

The Bogus Science Theorem (and the Junk Science Wager)

Expert Testimony versus Junk Science

L-[methyl-"1C]methionine ("IC-methionine) uptake of seven primary breast cancers, four soft tissue metastases of breast cancer, and three other breast lesions was studied by positron emission tomography (PET). "C-methionine accumulation was assessed by calculating the standardised uptake value (SUV). The mean SUV for breast cancer was 8.5± 3.3 (s.d.), while the maximal uptake in the liver was 1...

Psychiatric Evidence in Criminal Trials: To Junk or Not To Junk?

Attorney abuses of Daubert hearings: junk science, junk law, or just plain obstruction?

The U.S. Supreme Court case of Daubert v. MerrellDow Pharmaceuticals focused attention on the problem of “junk science” testimony in the courtroom, a decision that led to the emergence of the Daubert hearing as a pre-trial screening device for determining the reliability and relevance of expert testimony. Similar to other useful legal procedural safeguards of due process, alas, the Daubert hear...

Book Note Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom

Scientists, as expert witnesses, can aid juries greatly in their deliberations by explaining technical matters in terms easily comprehensible to jurors. When, however, the expert testimony is based on mere conjecture, speculation, or poor methodology, it can mislead the jury. Such evidence is commonly referred to as junk science.: Contrary to what might be expected, junk science results not onl...