In Texas, a New Law Lets Defendants Fight Bad Science
NCRJ President Michael Snedeker is quoted in The Atlantic:
The new statute offers another kind of clarity: “It’s important because a lot of really shaky evidence is clothed in objectivity,” said Snedeker, noting the incalculable impact expert testimony can have on a juror’s decision-making—especially expert testimony characterized as scientific or medical. “Our priests now are scientists, doctors,” said Snedeker. By giving defendants a way to question the sacrosanctity of scientific testimony, the court recognizes that science and medicine are mutable and continually evolving. (It’s notable that all three cases—Avila, the Kellers, and the San Antonio Four—involved children. Crimes involving minors can be particularly fraught and difficult for jurors to navigate, which often makes them more inclined to rely on “hard” evidence. As Snedeker put it, “Children are at the center of our need to have someone to blame. The idea that the random nature of things would take our child is so much harder to deal with.”)
Posted by rbchatelle on Saturday, March 1st, 2014 @ 9:23AM
Categories: Texas Four, The Kellers
Tags: Newsroom
Subscribe to the comments on this post.
One comment
[…] http://69.195.124.104/~ncrjorg/in-texas-a-new-law-lets-defendants-fight-bad-science/ […]