ABSTRACT
Peter Huber, a prominent critic of the federal rules of evidence, coined the phrase “junk science” to describe judicial acceptance of unreliable expert testimony. Despite the highly visible efforts to reform the rules governing experts in the civil arena, the “junk science” debate has all but ignored criminal prosecutions. The chapter explores the junk science debate to criminal prosecutions. It examines three issues raised by this debate: the necessity for use of a stringent standard when determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence, the need to secure the services of unbiased experts, and the desirability of liberal pretrial discovery of expert testimony. The Court in Barefoot justified its lax evidentiary standard, in part, by relying on the adversary system to “uncover, recognize, and take due account of [the] shortcomings” of expert testimony. The trial court refused, and although insanity was the only contested issue at trial, no psychiatrist testified on this issue.
