Are Judge's more critical of accepting "CSI" evidence?

The CSI: Crime Scene Investigation series makes it look easy, but forensic science doesn't always do so well in the courtroom with judges. And a pair of upcoming studies in the Journal of Forensic Science suggests some judges' suspicions are growing about the shakier types of scientific evidence.

In the studies led by Mark Page of Australia's University of Newcastle, legal experts looked at U.S. cases since the 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. and 1999 Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael court decisions that set higher standards for scientific evidence in criminal cases. Previously, past use of a technique, such as fingerprints or ballistics, had been sufficient to allow their use in the courtroom. But the Daubert and Kumho decisions had allowed defense attorneys to challenge the reliability of the techniques and the experts championing them, on scientific grounds:

"After Daubert and Kumho, many scholars assumed that a large proportion of forensic evidence presented in criminal and civil courts across the country would now be subject to renewed judicial scrutiny. However, some quickly realized that the real question was not whether legal academics concerned with the reliability of forensic science could interpret Daubert to justify the results they desired, but whether judges would do the same. Studies on the admissibility of forensic science since the Daubert decision have revealed that courts across the United States have felt its influence, even in those jurisdictions that have not explicitly adopted a Daubert standard. Several authors have noted that ''some forensic sciences have been with us so long, and judges have developed such faith in them, that they are admitted even if they do fail to meet minimal standards under Daubert''. The courts thus still appear extremely reluctant to deny the admission of forensic science evidence testimony in both civil and criminal trials. The legal reasoning by which forensic science evidence is admitted, characterized by some as ''judicial gymnastics,'' has also been the subject of much criticism," says the first study.


Link:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/05/judges-becoming-more-critical-of-csi-evidence/1