Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Expert evidence (2)
- Testimony (2)
- Witnesses (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- Costs (1)
-
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Discovery abuse (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- Frye v. United States (1)
- Juries (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Lawyers (1)
- Literature reviews (1)
- Reasonableness (1)
- Reliability (1)
- Scientific evidence (1)
- Trial practice (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Death And Transfiguration Of Frye, Richard D. Friedman
The Death And Transfiguration Of Frye, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The rule of Frye v. United States was seventy years old, and had long dominated American law on the question of how well established a scientific principle must be for it to provide the basis for expert testimony. Even after the passage of the Federal Rules of Evidence, several of the federal circuits, as well as various states, purported to adhere to Frye's "general acceptance" standard. But now, unanimously, briefly, and with no apparent angst, the United States Supreme Court has held in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that the Frye rule is incompatible with the Federal Rules.
Déjà-Vu All Over Again- Elliott's Critique Of Eyewitness Experts, Saul M. Kassin, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Vicki L. Smith
Déjà-Vu All Over Again- Elliott's Critique Of Eyewitness Experts, Saul M. Kassin, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Vicki L. Smith
Articles
Echoing McCloskey and Egeth (1983), and motivated by Kassin, Ellsworth, and Smith's (1989) survey of 63 eyewitness experts, Elliott (1993) recently attacked the use of psychological experts on eyewitness testimony. There are two principal shortcomings of this critique. First, it misrepresents the eyewitness literature and the experts who use it. Second, it merely parrots complaints of the past. The same old arguments are made about the lack of sufficient research evidence, the standards by which experts should conduct their affairs, and the impact of it all on the jury. Perhaps the field needs periodic prodding and consciousness-raising on this issue, …
Discovery Cost Allocation: Comment On Cooter And Rubinfeld, Edward H. Cooper
Discovery Cost Allocation: Comment On Cooter And Rubinfeld, Edward H. Cooper
Articles
Discovery practice continues to be the single most troubling element of contemporary procedure. To be sure, the system seems to work well in a high proportion of all federal cases. The proportion may seem astonishingly high in relation to the amount of attention devoted to discovery. The discovery problems that occur in a relatively small proportion of the federal caseload, however, impose serious burdens on the parties and the court system. Every proposal that addresses discovery "abuse" deserves serious attention. These comments focus on the discovery abuse portion of the paper by Cooter and Rubinfeld. Questions are posed that may …