An excellent example of the difference Paul notes in this post
is the way scientific evidence could be used in, e.g., the Simpson
trial. A scientist, recognizing that different labs have varying
degrees of competence &c, would require both sides to agree ahead of
time on a forensic lab. Instead, the scientific evidence was used as
simply one more weapon in the "trial by battle" which our adversarial
system sometimes degenerates into.
It would be interesting to have Johnson's ideas on this - not
the least of reaons being that here his legal expertise would be
relevant.
George Murphy