n Part I, I confirm the idealizations of science in law and their implications for legal scholarship and practice. In Part II, I describe the ethnographic method used by science studies scholars, with reference to my own ethnographic analysis of interviews with three neuroscientists. I conclude Part II by identifying various social aspects of science that comprise a complex picture of scientific activity. In Part ill, I discuss the implications of ethnomethodology for trial practice, including deposition analysis, Daubert-type hearings, cross-examination techniques, and drafting jury instructions. Part IV addresses anticipated criticisms of my arguments.
David S. Caudill,
Ethnography and the Idealized Accounts of Science in Law,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss2/2