![]() The Court held unanimously that the Frye test had not survived. In the seminal Daubert case, the Court granted certiorari to decide whether the so-called Frye (or “general acceptance”) test, 3 which some federal circuits (and virtually all state courts) used in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence, had been superseded by the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1973. It then examines a fourth Supreme Court case that relates to expert testimony, before turning to a variety of issues that judges are called upon to resolve, particularly when the proffered expert testimony hinges on scientific knowledge. This discussion begins with a brief overview of the Supreme Court’s three opinions on expert testimony-often called the Daubert trilogy 2-and their impact. If plaintiffs’ expert proof is excluded on a crucial issue, plaintiffs cannot win and usually cannot even get their case to a jury. As expert testimony has become increasingly essential in a wide variety of litigated cases, the Daubert opinion has had an enormous impact. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 1 ushered in a new era with regard to the admissibility of expert testimony. In 1993, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Daubert v. Assessing the Scientific Foundation of Studies from Different DisciplinesĬ. Conflating Admissibility with Sufficiencyī. Berger, J.D., was the Trustee Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York.Ī. In: Smith R, Wynne B (eds) Expert evidence: interpreting science in the law.Margaret A. Wynne B (1989) Establishing the rules of laws: constructing expert authority. Timmermans S (2006) Postmortem: how medical examiners explain suspicious deaths. Strasburger LH, Gutheil TD, Brodsky A (1997) On wearing two hats: role conflict in serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness. In: Smith R, Wynne B (eds) Expert evidence: interpreting science in the law. Smith R (1989) Forensic pathology, scientific expertise and the criminal law. Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson RC, Rosenthal R (2002) The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. McQuiston-Surrett D, Saks MJ (2009) The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Lynch M, Cole SA, McNally R, Jordan K (2008) Truth machine: the contentious history of DNA fingerprinting. Litwack T (1993) On the ethics of dangerousness assessments. Lawless CJ (2011) Policing markets: the contested shaping of neo-liberal forensic science. Jakobs LEMP, Sprangers WJJM (2000) A European view on forensic expertise and counter-expertise. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee (2011) Seventh report – the forensic science service. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee (2005) Forensic science on trial: 7th report of the session 2004–5 (HC 96-i). In: Wueste DE (ed) Professional ethics and social responsibility. ![]() Hardwig J (1994) Toward an Ethics of Expertise. Gross SR, Mnookin JL (2003) Expert information and expert evidence: a preliminary taxonomy. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS (1992) Is it unethical to offer predictions of violence? Law Hum Behav 16:621–633 ![]() Stephen T (2008) Inquiry into paediatric forensic pathology in Ontario: report. Giannelli PC (2007) Wrongful convictions and forensic science: the need to regulate crime labs. Oklahoma: the right to expert assistance in a post- Daubert, post-DNA world. ![]() Garrett BL, Neufeld PJ (2009) Invalid forensic science and wrongful convictions. Available at Accessed įorensic Science Regulator (2011) Codes of practice and conduct for forensic service providers and practitioners in the criminal justice system. Cambridge University Press, Cambridgeįingerprint Inquiry Scotland (2011) The fingerprint inquiry report. J Forensic Sci 53:1–4ĭwyer D (2008) The judicial assessment of expert evidence. Harvard University Press, Cambridgeĭror I, Rosenthal D (2008) Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Springer, New YorkĬole S (2001) Suspect identities: a history of fingerprinting and criminal identification. Willan, CullomptonĬandilis PJ, Weinstock RL, Martinez R (2007) Forensic ethics and the expert witness. In: Fraser J, Williams R (eds) Handbook of forensic science. Sci Technol Hum Val 30:52–75īarclay D (2009) Using forensic science in major crime inquiries. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswickīal R (2005) How to kill with a ballpoint: credibility in Dutch forensic science. Accessed Īronson JD (2007) Genetic witness: science, law and controversy in the making of DNA profiling. AAPL (American Academy of Psychiatry and Law) (2005) Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |