You be the judge.

In general, a judge is an independent legal expert. To expect a legal expert to be able to determine the validity of the scientific information is no more reasonable than to expect a scientist to be able to do a good job of making legal judgments ("Benched Science: Increasingly, judges decide what science--if any--a jury hears" SN: 10/8/05, p. 232).

THOMAS BRADLEY, POWAY, CALIF.

If I remember correctly, expert witnesses in British courts are hired by the judge. Not only would this reduce the likelihood of biased testimony, it could also give judges a window into scientific inquiry. I think most U.S. citizens, not just judges, need to learn about scientific and statistical methods. Most people are easily misled by incomplete and poorly designed experiments and misused statistics. Until the average citizen learns to avoid these things, judges, being only human, can't be expected to.

PHIL LONG, DERRY, N.H.

About 200 years ago, coerced testimony was recognized as useless for arriving at truth in a court of law. The same can be said of paid testimony. No matter whether it's an armed robber receiving 10 years off his sentence for testifying against another suspect or a scientist given cash to testify in a civil suit, paid testimony and justice are incompatible.

PETER WILSON, SIMI VALLEY, CALIF.