Law, Logic & SocSci/CourtEvidn
One of the toughest endeavors in the criminal justice system is making sure that juries have the information in front of them to make reliable decisions. In the U.S., this is regulated through rules of evidence, which govern what the jury is and is not allowed to hear. This goes for both non-scientific evidence (such as eyewitness testimony or a defendant's confession) and scientific evidence (such as a DNA sample or a blood spatter analysis). But how do we know what is reliable and valid "enough"?