Improving Judge & Jury Evaluation of Scientific Evidence | Citedby Results | Daedalus | MIT Press

Skip to Main Content

Skip Nav Destination

Improving Judge & Jury Evaluation of Scientific Evidence

Daedalus (2018) 147 (4): 164–180.

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

The Gatekeeper’s Dilemma: Expert Testimony, Scientific Knowledge and Judicial Reasoning

Edoardo Peruzzi
Gustavo Cevolani

SSRN Electronic Journal (2024)

Hearing voices: forensic speaker identification technology and expert listening in the American courtroom

Michael Mopas

Sound Studies (2023) 9 (2): 209.

Promoting transparency in forensic science by integrating categorical and evaluative reporting through decision theory

Michael E. Sigman
Mary R. Williams

Frontiers in Analytical Science (2023) 3

Judging Post-Controversy Expertise: Judicial Discretion and Scientific Marginalisation in the Courtroom

Gethin Rees
Deborah White

Science as Culture (2023) 32 (1): 109.

The time of death in Dutch court; using the Daubert criteria to evaluate methods to estimate the PMI used in court

Tamara Gelderman
Erik Stigter
Tristan Krap
Jens Amendt
Wilma Duijst

Legal Medicine (2021) 53: 101970.