IN DECIDING WHETHER TO ADMIT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AS EVIDENCE, THE JUDICIARY MUST BALANCE SEVERAL FACTORS: PRECEDENT, FAIRNESS (WHAT SECURES CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR THE ACCUSED), AND HARMONIZATION (HOW TO MESH ADVANCES IN SCIENCE WITH LEGAL PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE). THERE ARE THREE WAYS IN WHICH SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CAN BECOME LEGAL EVIDENCE: STIPULATION (AGREEMENT BY BOTH PARTIES TO A CASE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS ACCEPTABLE), JUDICIAL NOTICE (ACCEPTANCE OF WIDELY KNOWN, PUBLICLY DOCUMENTED FACTS, SUCH AS TIMES OF SUNRISES), AND EXPERT WITNESSES (TESTIFYING SCIENTISTS WHO PROVIDE FACTS AND OPINIONS AS DIRECT EVIDENCE. TRIAL ATTORNEYS MUST KNOW HOW TO QUALIFY SCIENTISTS AS EXPERT WITNESSES AND HOW TO INTRODUCE SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY AS EVIDENCE. IN ADDITION, THERE SHOULD BE SYSTEMS FOR LICENSING SCIENTISTS AS FORENSIC EXPERTS AND FOR CERTIFYING CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF FACT AND OPINION (E.G., BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS) AS ADMISSIBLE WITHOUT DIRECT TESTIMONY. THE FORENSIC SCIENCES ARE INCREASING IN VALUE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR MANY REASONS, INCLUDING GROWING SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. IN ADDITION TO PROSECUTORS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SKILLED IN THE USE OF FORENSIC SCIENCES AS SOURCES OF EVIDENCE, THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE REQUIRES TRIAL JUDGES ABLE TO RECOGNIZE WHEN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE QUALIFIES AS LEGAL EVIDENCE, WHEN SCIENTISTS QUALIFY AS EXPERT WITNESSES, AND WHY DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS TO COMPULSORY PROCESS MUST INCLUDE EXPERT SCIENTIFIC WITNESSES. (LKM) WITNESSES. (LKM)