truthfinding

I am very curious to know how allowing a jury to hear expert testimony of invalid diagnosis can "better serve truthfinding" than excluding such testimony.

Libertarian Blog Place 2009

Under Oregon law, however, the proper inquiry is not whether MCS or chemical sensitivity is a "valid" diagnosis or is recognized by other jurisdictions; rather, we must, on the record in this case, "decide whether truthfinding is better served by admission or exclusion."

Libertarian Blog Place 2009

236, 690 P.2d 709 1984, allowed expert testimony from a psychologist concerning the ability of eyewitnesses to perceive, remember, and relate accurately and the distorting effects of fear and excitement, courts have sometimes hesitated to allow such testimony because it may interfere in the truthfinding function or create an unwarranted aura of expertise.

Law In The Health and Human Services Donald T. Dickson 1995