CRI Joins National Coalition on Scientific Evidence in Federal Courts
The Caesar Rodney Institute recently joined policy organizations from across the country in a letter to the Federal Judicial Center raising concerns about how scientific evidence is presented to federal judges.
The Federal Judicial Center publishes the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence to help judges understand scientific methods and principles that arise in cases involving expert testimony. Earlier this year, the Center removed a chapter devoted specifically to climate science. The coalition is now asking it to remove the manual’s “How Science Works” chapter as well.
The concern is straightforward: judges should evaluate scientific evidence based on the reliability of the evidence and the methods used to reach a conclusion—not simply whether a conclusion represents a perceived scientific consensus.
The coalition argues that this distinction is especially important under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daubert decision, which require courts to scrutinize the reliability of expert evidence.
CRI joined The Buckeye Institute, State Policy Network, Commonwealth Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, Sutherland Institute and other organizations in signing the letter.
The letter was sent to Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, Director of the Federal Judicial Center, with Chief Justice John Roberts—who chairs the Federal Judicial Center’s Board—among those copied.
Why does this matter to Delaware? Scientific and technical evidence can influence decisions involving healthcare, energy, environmental regulation, business and other issues that affect Delawareans.
This effort also highlights an important part of CRI’s work that our readers may not always see. CRI collaborates with independent policy organizations across the country, giving Delaware a voice in national policy discussions while bringing research, legal expertise, and ideas from around the country back home.
Comments