scientific evidence, litigation, science, law, admissibility, Goudge Inquiry Report
I am grateful to Professors Edmond and Roach' and Professor Haack2 for their thoughtful replies to my paper, Law 's Treatment of Science: From Idealizationto Understanding.Much like my experience after reading "A Contextual Approach to the Admissibility of the State's Forensic Science and Medical Evidence,"' and Haack's contributions, 4 I have come away from reviewing Edmond and Roach and Haack's replies with a heightened awareness that the admissibility of scientific evidence is significant and complicated. Both replies have raised important concerns that have demanded further attention from me, which I turn to here. My response to Edmond and Roach's Reply is in Part I below, followed by my response to Haack's Reply in Part II.
Nayha Acharya, "Response to Haack and Edmond/Roach Articles" (2013) 1:1 Dal LJ 93.