Science and Social Science Evidence

• Author: Alan D. Gold
• Pages: 233-238

[233]

Chapter 9

Science and Social Science Evidence

     evidence can also arise where courts try to obtain and con-

sume ex pert ev idence on the ir own, w ithout the a ssistanc e of an ex pert witne ss.

is has become an issue because in the market expansion of social science evi-

dence, its purveyors have discovered the legal doctrine of judicial notice.

A prominent attempt to enhance the use of social science evidence in gener-

al relies on a categorization of the types of “facts” that courts must  nd. Using

a taxonomy of “social fact” (or adjudicative facts: facts important only to the

immediate parties to a dispute) and “social authority” (legislative facts, or facts

used to help courts decide questions of law and policy), supplemented by “social

framework,” authors Monahan and Walker argue for a categorization of the

evidentiary requirements for each as follows:

Social science research that bears on an adjudicative fact is governed by 

the normal rules of evidence. e precedential value of social science

used in this way is limited to the methodology of the social science (e.g.,

the use of standard deviation analysis to establish a prima facie case of

employment discr imination).

“Social authority” evidence and “social framework” can be obtained out-

side the normal rules of evidence.

 J. Monahan & L. Walker, “So cial Authority: Obtain ing, Evaluating and Est ablishing

Social Science as L aw” ()  U. Pa. L. R ev. .

 As summarized in Judge R . James Willia ms, “e Use of Social Science Ev idence” (un-

dated, Dartmouth , Nova Scotia).