Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
"Yer Outa Here!" A Framework For Analyzing The Potential Exclusion Of Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stephen D. Easton
"Yer Outa Here!" A Framework For Analyzing The Potential Exclusion Of Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stephen D. Easton
University of Richmond Law Review
It does not take long for even a casual observer of criminal and civil trials to make two observations about expert witnesses. The first of these observations comes almost immediately: experts are vitally important to the judicial process. In many trials, the outcome largely depends upon which set of impressively credentialed experts the jurors (and the judge) believe. The second observation generally comes later than the first: a significant amount of shoddy "science," phony logic, faulty analysis, sleight of hand, and other assorted junk enters the courtroom dressed up in the emperor's clothes of expert testimony.
Daubert And The Quest For Value-Free "Scientific Knowledge" In The Courtroom, Alexander Morgan Capron
Daubert And The Quest For Value-Free "Scientific Knowledge" In The Courtroom, Alexander Morgan Capron
University of Richmond Law Review
In a world that grows more technologically complex every day and in which scientific research continually expands both our understanding of, and our questions about, the operation of the natural and man-made world, it is hardly surprising that science should show up with increasing frequency in our court-rooms. Science itself is sometimes at issue, for example, in proceedings on allegations of scientific misconduct or in disputes over the ownership or patentability of technologies. But more frequently, science enters in aid of resolving a case in which a complex question of causation is at issue. To establish or rebut causation, each …
Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones
Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones
University of Richmond Law Review
The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (the Rules) resulted in a more liberal standard for the admission and use of various forms of evidence. For example, the Rules altered the definition of "relevant evidence" increasing the scope of evidence that can be presented to a jury. Also, the Rules per- mit prior inconsistent statements to be admitted as substantive evidence rather than for impeachment purposes only. The Advisory Committee enunciated these changes, and other changes resulting from the adoption of the Rules, in their notes accompanying the Rules.
Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin
Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin
University of Richmond Law Review
Expert witnesses are at once detested and treasured. The scorn is significant because of the increasingly prominent role experts play in both civil and criminal litigation. Experts are seen as mercenaries, prostitutes or hired guns, witnesses devoid of principle who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. Experts are not impartial professionals who explain difficult concepts to the trier of fact. Rather, experts become advocates for the side who hired them. The consequences of this role change are not desirable: experts testify to matters beyond their expertise, render opinions that are unreliable, speculative or outside what the experts would be …
Taking The Sizzle Out Of The Frye Rule: Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Opens The Door To Novel Expert Testimony, Kimberly Ann Satterwhite
Taking The Sizzle Out Of The Frye Rule: Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Opens The Door To Novel Expert Testimony, Kimberly Ann Satterwhite
University of Richmond Law Review
In Frye v. United States, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirmed a trial court's exclusion of lie detector test results on the ground that such tests had not been "generally accepted" by the scientific community. The Frye rule, or "general acceptance" standard, quickly became the dominant test for the admission of scientific evidence. Decided in 1923, Frye governed evidentiary decisions in a majority of federal circuits for the next seventy years. The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, however, prompted several judges to question the validity of Frye. Since the enactment of the …