ODEC 9385 - The judge and the expert: when science comes to court

Scientific issues permeate the law and pose significant challenges for the scientifically untrained judges who decide such issues. Scientific and technological developments have resulted in increased use of scientific evidence in the courtroom. Cases in which the validity or reliability of the science or technology itself is at issue create even greater problems because the judge must evaluate evidence about which even experts may disagree. Criminal courts consider the scientific validity of DNA sampling or voiceprints, or expert predictions of defendants' “future dangerousness,” which can lead courts or juries to authorize or withhold the punishment of death. Courts review the reasonableness of administrative agency conclusions about the safety of a drug or the risks attending nuclear waste disposal. The growing number of appearances of environmentalist scientific experts in proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has equally triggered an unprecedented debate about the capacity of an international court to incorporate scientific input into its judicial activity. Finally, constitutional courts deal often with scientific data in controversial situations such as abortion or euthanasia or in emergency situations such as the covid-19 pandemic or the recent energy crisis. This course will provide an overview of literature debates on judicial capacity, performance, and competence in assessing scientific data. How can courts staffed with generalist judges feel confident with these data? Should they feel confident? After working on various case studies – environmental cases, cyber-security cases, health care cases, banking and financial cases, etc. – judicial strategies adopted across different types of trial will be discussed. The course explores and analyzes framing techniques, evidentiary procedures, causal inquiries and standards of review, offering valuable insight into how judges justify their choices between rival scientific claims in a convincing and legitimate manner.

Nefeli LEFKOPOULOU

Séminaire

English

None.

Spring 2024-2025

The module is run as a seminar. That means that everyone is expected to attend every class having completed the readings, ready to participate.

- Class Participation: (worth 20 percent of the final grade)
Class participation requires active contribution to class discussion. This includes listening to others, having questions for discussion, and demonstrating that oral contributions are based on a detailed reading of the assigned literature for the week.
- 1 Individual or Group Oral Presentation: (worth 40 percent of the final grade)
Oral presentations topics will be assigned to students during Session 1 and will take place in Sessions 2-12. The aim of an oral presentation is to convey a reasoned argumentation, delivering a clear point of view, substantiated by comparative examples, within the limits of a given topic, while respecting formal constraints. At the end of your presentation, you will open the floor to a debate with your audience. Other students will be required to ask you questions and engage in a discussion with you on certain aspects of the presentation or on broader related issues.
- 1 Short Research Paper: (worth 40 percent of the final grade)
The research paper will be approximately 4000 words in length. The question addressed must arise out of one of the topics covered in the course. Many of the points discussed in the seminar might form the basis of an interesting question or puzzle that you wish to tackle. The research paper must go beyond the readings on the syllabus and demonstrate some independent research. The research paper could be comparative: it might compare two or more jurisdictions in some depth, or might adopt a broad approach, examining a topic across a range of systems.