Problem
Consider the assertion: "Judges can distinguish between good science/scientific evidence and junk science/scientific evidence to accurately determine evidence admissibility thanks to cases like Frye and Daubert (and the latter's 'progeny,' General Electric and Kumho)."
• Do you agree or disagree with this assertion? Why or why not?
• Do you think that the standards set forth in these court cases are enough to prevent "junk" science from entering the courtroom and being introduced in a trial? Why or why not?
• What standard(s) would you add to the current evidence admissibility standards set forth in Daubert to make evidence admissibility requirements more robust? Explain why you would add the standard.