Science in the courtroom has undergone serious re-examination. Disputed assumptions about longstanding forensic methods have propelled legal practitioners into an era of heightened skepticism. Frye and Daubert have not taken us far enough.
DNA exonerations, the exposure of false confessions and faulty eyewitness testimony have shown that when there is certainty, there is no certainty. The latest national report on this problem underscores the ongoing concerns with forensic evidence and portends a shift in legal thinking.
