The neglected intermediate premise in the forensic expert's testimony

The testimony of most expert witnesses is reducible to a syllogism: The expert derives a relevant opinion (the conclusion) by applying a general theory or technique (the major premise) to the specific facts of the case (the minor premise). Legal commentators have tended to focus on the expert's major premise to the neglect of the minor premise. Thus, legal analysts have devoted little attention to the question of the forensic expert's use of proper test protocol. This neglect can result in the admission of erroneous scientific testimony. The neglect also represents a missed opportunity--the legal system's opportunity to give the forensic community additional incentive scrupulously to follow correct test procedures.