It sounds like a straightforward task, but it's not, judges and most of the people who comprise juries often are almost completely ignorant of the simplest scientific concepts. Experts, it seems, can be found to take one or the other side of any scientific issue. But I also came away wondering whether the vastly different cultures of science and law could ever reach a comfortable understanding of each other. Ayd pointed out that, whatever one thinks about juries, the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to a jury. And leaving consideration of sophisticated scientific evidence to a judge is no solution, Ayd said.
Studies show that judges do a worse job than juries in understanding scientific evidence.
Ayd believes that lawyers must work to educate a jury when presenting scientific evidence. Identify the facts necessary for resolution of the issue. And apply the science and the facts to formulate an opinion. Meyer said that natural scientists, engineers, medical professionals, and lawyers all bring different world views to a courtroom, and that these differences affect their performance during a trial. Several of the speakers at the symposium drew distinctions between science and the law that often lead to problems in the courtroom.