Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Scientific Evidence And The Ethical Obligations Of Attorneys, Michael J. Saks
Scientific Evidence And The Ethical Obligations Of Attorneys, Michael J. Saks
Cleveland State Law Review
This article considers the question: "What are the legal and ethical responsibilities of attorneys when offering scientific expert evidence to courts?" To a lesser extent it considers the responsibilities of attorneys to challenge such evidence when proffered and the ethical dimensions of the working relationship of lawyers and experts. Although the most prominent discussions of such issues have concerned so-called junk science in civil trials, the legal context upon which this article will focus is the criminal trial, where dubious science is more common, less questioned, and has even become institutionalized. The rules and practices of civil cases are provided …
The Admissibility Of Medical Testimony In Ohio: Daubert, Joiner And Ohio's Relevance-Reliability Standard, Gerald J. Todaro
The Admissibility Of Medical Testimony In Ohio: Daubert, Joiner And Ohio's Relevance-Reliability Standard, Gerald J. Todaro
Cleveland State Law Review
This 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's 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 …
The Proper Test For Assessing The Admissibility Of Nonscientific Expert Evidence Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 702, 1997 John M. Manos Writing Competition On Evidence , Peter B. Oh
Cleveland State Law Review
Courts have fashioned various common law standards to determine the admissibility of nonscientific expert evidence. This Article examines these different standards to evince the need for harmony. Part I of this article examines the admissibility tests for nonscientific expert evidence administered by federal courts before Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The first such test appears in Frye v. United States, which establishes only expert knowledge based on a method or principle that has gained sufficient "general acceptance" can be admitted. Part I concludes by discussing the problems that plague these different applied tests and beckon for a single standard. Part …