891 research outputs found
Daubert ‘Unbound
No full textArticle discusses the development of the law of admitting scientific evident since Daubert
Human Factors Expert Testimony after Daubert (1993)
No full text This paper reviewed Human Factors expert testimony after the Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). Daubert (1993) set a new standard for Experts testifying in federal courts. Failure of a Human Factors expert to meet the Daubert standard will result in the exclusion of the expert's testimony. Court cases after Daubert (1993) were reviewed and principles were applied which resulted in acceptance or rejection of the Human Factors expert testimony. Considerations for Human Factors professionals testifying in court are discussed. </jats:p
Courts\u27 Evolving Roles in Daubert Decisions
No full textIn Daubert, the Supreme Court interpreted Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to permit an arguably more-relaxed standard for the admission of expert scientific evidence than previously allowed under the popular Frye test
Legal and Scientific Implications of Daubert: An Empirical Analysis of Expert Psychological Testimony
No full textThe goal of this paper is to outline the legal and scientific implications of the admissibility standard defined in Daubert v. Merrel Row Pharmeceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The evolution of scientific admissibility is discussed. In addition, the author looks at criticisms of Daubert from the legal and psychological literature. Empirical data is presented with respect to judges’ abilities to act as “gate keepers” and jurors’ sensitivity to expert testimony. The author concludes with a discussion of the limitations and implications of this research
Implant feasibility and electrical performance over time of a new left heart side wire lead: results from a multicenter experience
No full textDaubert v Frye: A State by State Comparison on Expert Qualification
No full textDaubert v Frye: A State by State Comparison on Expert Qualification
Witnesses are an integral part of any court case. One of the main types is the expert witness. In order for expert witnesses to have both their testimony and opinion entered into evidence, they must first meet a certain standard of admissibility. The federal courts use the Daubert test explicitly, while state courts have the option of using Daubert, or the older Frye test (some states use a hybrid of the two). This paper focuses on the history of the two main tests as well as compares how the expert witness qualification tests are used in New York and California (Frye), Texas and Michigan (Daubert), and Illinois and Georgia (hybrid)
Wading Into the Daubert Tide: Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California
No full textIn Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, the California Supreme Court decided arguably the most important expert testimony decision that it has rendered in at least two decades. Prior to Sargon, California appeared steadfastly committed to the classic “general acceptance” test, which required judges to assess whether an expert’s theory or technique had gained general acceptance in the relevant fields. In 1993, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court announced a new empirical validation test. In the years since 1993, most state courts adopted some version of Daubert, but until Sargon the California Supreme Court had refused to follow the federal lead.Sargon undoubtedly moves California jurisprudence toward the Daubert approach. In Sargon, the court adopted the fundamental perspective of Daubert and embraced key terminology from the Daubert opinion and its progeny. These parallels have prompted some commentators to declare that California is now in the Daubert camp. Although Sargon is a step toward the Daubert approach, it is premature to conclude that Sargon goes that far for at least two reasons. First, even post-Sargon, the California approach may be laxer than the federal approach. In Daubert, Justice Blackmun stated that Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) governs the trial judge’s admissibility decision, which mandates that the judge probe deeply into the bases for the expert’s opinion, even including assessing credibility. Sargon stops short of explicitly going that far. Second, the California approach may prove to be more demanding than the federal approach. In a footnote, Sargon indicates that the Frye test is still good law in California. If so, then some proponents may face the daunting task of surmounting both hurdles to admissibility
Wading Into the Daubert Tide: Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California
No full textIn Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, the California Supreme Court decided arguably the most important expert testimony decision that it has rendered in at least two decades. Prior to Sargon, California appeared steadfastly committed to the classic “general acceptance” test, which required judges to assess whether an expert’s theory or technique had gained general acceptance in the relevant fields. In 1993, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court announced a new empirical validation test. In the years since 1993, most state courts adopted some version of Daubert, but until Sargon the California Supreme Court had refused to follow the federal lead.Sargon undoubtedly moves California jurisprudence toward the Daubert approach. In Sargon, the court adopted the fundamental perspective of Daubert and embraced key terminology from the Daubert opinion and its progeny. These parallels have prompted some commentators to declare that California is now in the Daubert camp. Although Sargon is a step toward the Daubert approach, it is premature to conclude that Sargon goes that far for at least two reasons. First, even post-Sargon, the California approach may be laxer than the federal approach. In Daubert, Justice Blackmun stated that Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) governs the trial judge’s admissibility decision, which mandates that the judge probe deeply into the bases for the expert’s opinion, even including assessing credibility. Sargon stops short of explicitly going that far. Second, the California approach may prove to be more demanding than the federal approach. In a footnote, Sargon indicates that the Frye test is still good law in California. If so, then some proponents may face the daunting task of surmounting both hurdles to admissibility
The Admissibility of Medical Testimony in Ohio: Daubert, Joiner and Ohio\u27s Relevance-Reliability Standard
No full textThis article specifically examines the reliability standard imposed under Rule 702 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence and its application to medical expert testimony in Ohio. Section II reviews Daubert, its progeny, and Ohio law. This analysis reveals tension between Ohio\u27s flexible relevance/reliability standard and the more exacting demands of Daubert. Section III examines the scientific basis of clinical diagnosis and treatment of illness and disease. This section argues that judges should take judicial notice of the conventional methodology underlying the clinical practice of medicine, and thus the preliminary question of reliability of medical expert testimony should rarely require a Daubert hearing. Section IV discusses the reliability of medical and scientific literature and the criteria establishing its use by experts and attorneys in the courtroom
- …
