Federalist Society conference focuses on civil justice system.

Former ATLA President Barry Nace defended the role of the jury in our nation's civil justice system at a recent conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the Federalist Society, a national legal association of conservatives and libertarians.

The conference--"Civil Justice and the Litigation Process: Do the Merits and the Search for Truth Matter Anymore?" --featured several prominent lawyers, judges, public officials, and scholars. During the two-day seminar, speakers debated the merits of current litigation trends and discussed the future of the civil justice system.

Nace joined a panel of seven legal and medical experts to debate the role of scientific evidence in civil litigation. He strongly opposed a suggestion that the validity of scientific expert testimony and evidence offered to support a claim or defense should be determined by a "blue ribbon" panel of independent scientists rather than a judge or jury.

"What we lose sight of is that juries can make good decisions," Nace said, adding that the traditional way of attacking weak evidence through cross-examination by competent lawyers is the best way to ensure that the interests of justice are served.

Nace also asked panelists and those in the audience who supported the blue ribbon panel idea to consider how they would feel about the issue if they or their family members had been injured by a defendant's product. "Before you go too far," he said, "say to yourself, `What if it were me or my child? Would I want scientists to have a blue ribbon discussion about [the evidence]?"'

Peter Huber, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, responded directly to that question. "I have three children," he said. "I cannot believe that any parent believes children are better off in a society in which junk science is allowed in court unless they are plaintiffs in court with a weak case."

Nace came back with a passionate rebuttal. "I would disagree with the idea of a blue ribbon panel. We need attorneys who know the issues and can conduct thorough cross-examinations," he said. "If the experts are so bad, either they'll be stricken or they'll be disregarded. I'd rather let the citizens of this country decide than some blue ribbon panel."

Other panel discussions focused on topics including class action litigation, modern discovery practice, and punitive damages.