Medical and scientific organizations and scientific evidence in US trials:Lessons from European legal theory

Medical and scientific societies and organizations could help to solve the problem that the U.S. judicial system has:with trials involving scientific evidence. This problem is exemplified by infamous trials in which opposing high-paid experts present contradictory legal theories based on the same sc ientific facts. The conflicting conclusions of such experts often confuse r ather than clarify the issues for the jury and even the judge. Dissatisfact ion with these "battles of the experts" in both civil (e.g., breast-implant litigation) and criminal (e.g., forensic use of DNA evidence) trials range s from concern to harsh-criticism, Many critics identify as models for refo rm the European legal systems, where scientific evidence is presented in a relatively objective manner by experts appointed by the trial court. Since they are often selected from lists of the faculties of universities, Europe an experts are more likely to represent prevailing views of the relevant sc ientific community. Most American judges are reluctant to appoint experts, but there are some examples of their increasing use, and legal mechanisms a nd procedures exist that would allow this approach. Professional, organizat ions of scientists and physicians could serve an important role in fosterin g the forensic use of neutral expertise by developing lists of experts for the courts this would at least provide the potential. for unbiased experts in complex cases that involve scientific and medical evidence. Such experti se could help American courts in their quests for scientific and legal trut hs.