I’m a trial lawyer (retired). You said it succinctly and correctly.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Science supporting a null hypothesis is never as sexy as studies supporting a correlation, even when those studies are TERRIBLE. "What? They used a thousand controls and different methods to show NOTHING? Boring!" "This one crappy showed a strong correlation?? WOW!"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The jury feels sorry for the seriously ill plaintiff, so they find in his favour because the defendant 'can afford it'.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Exacerbated by legal system which allows jurors to weigh evidence by assessing the reliability of witnesses, expert or not.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not entirely true. You are forgetting the very important role that judges play as gatekeepers to bad science under Daubert. Don’t forget to assign the judge a portion of the blame.
-
And the failure to apply those factors (which may differ in state courts-check your jurisdiction) is where the reversals happen.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.