Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- File Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Choice And Boundary Problems In Logerquist, Hummert, And Kumho Tire, David H. Kaye
Choice And Boundary Problems In Logerquist, Hummert, And Kumho Tire, David H. Kaye
David Kaye
This article, part of a symposium on the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Logerquist v. McVey, questions that court’s rationales for refusing to apply heightened scrutiny to psychiatric testimony about the retrieval of repressed memories. It also challenges the court’s use of a “personal observations” exception to the heightened scrutiny standard of Frye v. United States. It proposes that a better solution to problems of scientific and expert evidence would be to adopt a sliding scale that attends to the use to which the evidence is put and the degree to which it has been shown to be …
Why Judges Applying The Daubert Trilogy Need To Know About The Social, Institutional, And Rhetorical -- And Not Just The Methodological Aspects Of Science, Lewis H. Larue, David S. Caudill
Why Judges Applying The Daubert Trilogy Need To Know About The Social, Institutional, And Rhetorical -- And Not Just The Methodological Aspects Of Science, Lewis H. Larue, David S. Caudill
David S Caudill
In response to the claim that many judges are deficient in their understanding of scientific methodology, this Article identifies in recent cases (i) a pragmatic perspective on the part of federal appellate judges when they reverse trial judges who tend to idealize science (i.e., who do not appreciate the local and practical goals and limitations of science), and (ii) an educational model of judicial gatekeeping that results in reversal of trial judges who defer to the social authority of science (i.e., who mistake authority for reliability). Next, this Article observes that courts (in the cases it analyzes) are not interested …
Empiricism In Daubert And The California Supreme Court In Sargon, Robert Sanger
Empiricism In Daubert And The California Supreme Court In Sargon, Robert Sanger
Robert M. Sanger
California has become a Daubert state. In Sargon v. The University of Southern California, the California Supreme Court held that judges are the “gatekeepers” with regard to expert or scientific evidence in this state, just as has been the case in the federal system (and many other states) since the decision in Daubert. Now that California is avowedly a Daubert state, it is important to understand why courtroom evidence – scientific, expert or, for that matter, otherwise – is properly grounded in empiricism. Empiricism is the theory that knowledge is derived from experience. Understanding this empirical basis for both Daubert …
Brain Trauma, Pet Scans And Forensic Complexity, Jane Moriarty, Daniel Langleben, James Provenzale
Brain Trauma, Pet Scans And Forensic Complexity, Jane Moriarty, Daniel Langleben, James Provenzale
Jane Campbell Moriarty
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is a medical imaging technique that can be used to show brain function. Courts have admitted PET scan evidence in cases involving brain damage, injury, toxic exposure, or illness ("brain trauma") and to support claims of diminished cognitive abilities and impulse control. Despite the limited data on the relationships between PET, brain trauma and behavior, many courts admit PET scan evidence without much critical analysis. This article examines the use of PET as proof of functional impairment and justification of abnormal behavior by explaining its diagnostic use and limitations, the limited support for claims of its …
Mind Reading And The Art Of Drafting Medical Opinions In Veterans Benefits Claims, James Ridgway
Mind Reading And The Art Of Drafting Medical Opinions In Veterans Benefits Claims, James Ridgway
James D. Ridgway
Once upon a time, deciding veterans benefits claims was simple and logical, although not perfect. Prior to the institution of judicial review, when a veteran filed a disability claim, the relevant records would be gathered and given to a panel of medical and legal experts. The experts would each bring their own specialized knowledge to the discussion and issue a decision that applied medical science and applicable law to the facts of the case. Such decisions may well have been correct as to the science and the law, but they were impossible to verify in the absence of any stated …