La recevabilité d'une expertise scientifique aux États-Unis

Abstract

How the rules of evidence govern the admission of scientific testimony ? Ending a three stages evolution, the United States Supreme Court ruled a standard of admissibility for scientific evidence that leads judges to assess experts' scientific knowledge.

The scalpel, the calculator and the judge in France: from technical perspective to legal evidence

“…For both forensic economists and pathologists, overstepping is quite common, even in the French system, where the division between legal activity and technical activity is very clear in the law books and is formally required to be so during the expertise process, though it is actually quite blurred during experts’ activities. In the US, the boundary between what is legal and what is scientific is also a very hot topic, even if it has played out otherwise, notably since (and through) the famous Daubert case and then the Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael case (Munagorri, 1999; Leclerc, 2005). 5 With these decisions, American judges have taken responsibility for accepting or rejecting proof delivered by experts, imposing the need for these experts to more and truly open the black box of their activities and to justify their methodologies, to explain how and why they use certain types of data.…”