submit by troy m; comments by blogger jgl
I always knew the juries didn't understand evidence, but the lawyers too?
|Judith Fordham said that when she was working as a lawyer, before becoming an associate professor in forensic science, she realised how little she and her colleagues knew about forensics...|
..."I found that jurors wanted to ask questions about scientific and medical evidence in court because lawyers hadn't asked the right questions,'' said Prof Fordham, who still practises as a barrister while working at Murdoch University.
"Many lawyers have also never learnt how to present forensic evidence because they have no scientific training, despite the huge rise in the use of such evidence.
"So people are potentially being convicted or acquitted wrongly because lawyers don't know enough about science -- it's scary."
I think this may trump up the effects resulting from a lawyer's lack of scientific knowledge.
Since when does a lawyer have to know what he/she is talking about?