Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Expert Testimony And Scientific Evidence, Lynn Mclain
Expert Testimony And Scientific Evidence, Lynn Mclain
All Faculty Scholarship
Handout from a day-long lecture on expert and scientific testimony at the Maryland Judicial Institute.
Jurors' Evaluations Of Expert Testimony: Judging The Messenger And The Message, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic, Valerie P. Hans
Jurors' Evaluations Of Expert Testimony: Judging The Messenger And The Message, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic, Valerie P. Hans
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors' reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analysis of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the …
Atkins V. Virginia: A Psychiatric Can Of Worms, Douglas Mossman Md
Atkins V. Virginia: A Psychiatric Can Of Worms, Douglas Mossman Md
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
This article provides a psychiatric perspective on the problems Atkins raises for courts that handle death penalty cases. In contrast to the overarching aim of the majority's opinion in Atkins - making the administration of capital punishment more equitable - the Supreme Court's latest prescription of psychiatric help may only add a new layer of complexity and confusion to the already capricious process through which the U.S. criminal justice system imposes death sentences. The article briefly review's the Supreme Court's 1989 Penry decision, focusing on the role that evidence of mental retardation played in death penalty cases before Atkins was …
The Structure Of Expertise In Criminal Cases, Christopher Slobogin
The Structure Of Expertise In Criminal Cases, Christopher Slobogin
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
This essay, part of a two-issue symposium on the implications of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and its progeny, is built around three propositions about expert testimony and criminal cases. First, the "Daubert trilogy's" focus on verifiability as the threshold for expert testimony pushes the criminal justice system away from the notion that knowledge is socially constructed and toward a positivist epistemology that assumes we can know things objectively. Second, in the long run, that development will be good for prosecutors and bad for criminal defendants, given the different types of expertise on which they rely. Third, the consequence of …
A Three-Dimensional Model For The Use Of Expert Psychiatric And Psychological Evidence In False Confession Defenses Before The Trier Of Fact, Major Joshua E. Kastenberg
A Three-Dimensional Model For The Use Of Expert Psychiatric And Psychological Evidence In False Confession Defenses Before The Trier Of Fact, Major Joshua E. Kastenberg
Seattle University Law Review
Part I of this Article delineates a defendant's right to present voluntariness and credibility evidence against his or her confession. This section analyzes the basic constitutional framework of how a defendant can present this evidence and describes the traditional safeguards against false confessions. This background information provides a context for the overarching issue of expert testimony admissibility. Part II provides a basic understanding of differences between the psychiatric (medical model) and psychological (social model) approach to false confessions. It then examines the types of false confession defenses used by defendants and the interrogation techniques challenged by defendants. Part III reviews …
Can Fingerprints Lie?: Re-Weighing Fingerprint Evidence In Criminal Jury Trials, Tamara F. Lawson
Can Fingerprints Lie?: Re-Weighing Fingerprint Evidence In Criminal Jury Trials, Tamara F. Lawson
Articles
This article discusses fingerprint evidence and its use in criminal jury trials. It is commonly thought that fingerprints "never lie"; however, this article reveals the little known fact that the "science" of fingerprint identification has never been empirically tested or proven to be reliable. It further exposes the seldom-discussed issue of fingerprint misidentification and latent print examiner error. The article explains the importance of fingerprint evidence and its extensive use in all phases of the criminal justice system. Specifically, the article plays out the dramatic courtroom scenario of incriminating fingerprints being found at a crime scene and matching the accused …
The Admissibility Of Expert Testimony In Washington On Post Traumatic Stress Disorder And Related Trauma Syndromes: Avoiding The Battle Of The Experts By Restoring The Use Of Objective Psychological Testimony In The Courtroom, Dr. Brett C. Trowbridge
The Admissibility Of Expert Testimony In Washington On Post Traumatic Stress Disorder And Related Trauma Syndromes: Avoiding The Battle Of The Experts By Restoring The Use Of Objective Psychological Testimony In The Courtroom, Dr. Brett C. Trowbridge
Seattle University Law Review
This Article focuses on three types of syndrome evidence-rape trauma syndrome, child abuse syndromes, and battered person syndrome-all of which seem to be closely related to the diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Part II provides background regarding the Frye test, explains how mental disorders are defined in the manual clinicians use, DSM-IV-TR, and outlines PTSD and associated syndromes. Parts III, IV, V, and VI address both legal and psychological concerns regarding specific syndromes and identify what types of testimony Washington law allows in each of these three areas. Part VII discusses the concerns regarding the scientific validity of …
Identity Crisis: The Obsolescence Of Jasopersaud V. Rho And The Medical Malpractice Expert Exception, Mark D. Shifton
Identity Crisis: The Obsolescence Of Jasopersaud V. Rho And The Medical Malpractice Expert Exception, Mark D. Shifton
Fordham Urban Law Journal
This Comment discusses the provision of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") governing the disclosure of medical malpractice expert witnesses, and how medical malpractice litigants strive to protect the identities of their experts. The Comment discusses the initial judicial decisions dealing with the amended CPLR 3101, and how courts initially struggled to apply the medical malpractice expert exception. Special attention is paid to Jasopersaud v. Rho, which attempted to create a workable standard to further the competing goals of CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) and Thomas v. Alleyne. The Comment further discusses whether the policy goals behind the medical malpractice …
Trouble With Daubert-Kumho: Reconsidering The Supreme Court's Philosophy Of Science, The, David Crump
Trouble With Daubert-Kumho: Reconsidering The Supreme Court's Philosophy Of Science, The, David Crump
Missouri Law Review
This Article begins with a brief exploration of the philosophy of science that is laid out in the Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho cases. It then proceeds to examine the question, “what is science”? A related section considers the disadvantages and ironic results of the Daubert-Kumho definition of science. Next, the Article considers the characteristics of a good scientific theory or model. It compares the resulting criteria to those set out in Daubert and its progeny and shows how the Supreme Court’s philosophy can produce dubious consequences. A final section sets out the conclusions, which include the possibility that the Supreme …
Peer Dialogue: The How And What Of Appropriate Validation Under Daubert: Reconsidering The Treatment Of Einstein And Freud, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Peer Dialogue: The How And What Of Appropriate Validation Under Daubert: Reconsidering The Treatment Of Einstein And Freud, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Missouri Law Review
In its landmark decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court announced that the trial judge must play a gatekeeping or screening role in deciding whether proffered expert testimony constitutes sufficiently reliable “scientific . . . knowledge” to qualify for admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Court declared that the proponent of the testimony must lay a foundation establishing “appropriate validation” for the expert’s underlying theory or technique. In order to intelligently assess the adequacy of a validation foundation, the trial judge must address two questions: what must be validated, and how should it be …