scholarly journals School Desegregation Litigation in the Seventies and the Use of Social Science Evidence: An Annotated Guide

1975 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betsy Levin ◽  
Philip Moise
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
School Desegregation ◽  
Annotated Guide ◽  
Desegregation Litigation ◽  
Social Science Evidence ◽  
Science Evidence

The exclusion of prison informant evidence for unreliability in new Zealand

2021 ◽  
pp. 136571272110112
Author(s):  
Anna High
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Social Science Evidence ◽  
Science Evidence

Prison informant or ‘jailhouse snitch’ evidence is a notoriously unreliable category of evidence. In light of reliability concerns, the New Zealand Supreme Court has adopted a progressive approach to the exclusion of prison informant evidence, centred on greater use of general exclusionary provisions as a threshold of reliability for the admission of suspect evidence. In so doing, the court has shifted the emphasis from deference to the jury as arbiter of ultimate reliability and towards more robust judicial gatekeeping as a safeguard against false testimony. This article critically analyses the New Zealand approach, including by way of comparison with Canada, Australia and England and Wales. The New Zealand approach is presented as a principled and important example of adapting fundamental evidentiary principles and provisions in line with emerging social science evidence. However, in light of the general concerns surrounding this class of evidence, ultimately further safeguards are still needed

Should Any Court Accept the “Social Authority” Paradigm?

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Nowlin
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Social Authority ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Science Evidence ◽  
Research Criteria ◽  
Science Evidence ◽  
The Way

Monahan and Walker have proposed that American judges should fundamentally alter the way they receive and assess social science evidence in court, by treating social science research as “law-like” or authoritative when certain professional research criteria are met. Strict application of the stipulated criteria to various kinds of social science research introduced into American and Canadian courts reveals, however, that such research can seldom be considered authoritative in the way Monahan and Walker imagine. Accordingly, as a general rule judges should be reluctant to apply Monahan and Walker’s “social authority” model to the courtroom resolution of difficult questions of social, economic, and cultural or historical facts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document