Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Lingering Questions Of A Supreme Court Decision: The Confines Of The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Jennifer L. Odrobina
Lingering Questions Of A Supreme Court Decision: The Confines Of The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Jennifer L. Odrobina
Cleveland State Law Review
The United States Supreme Court "in light of [its] reason and experience"' has recognized a psychotherapist-patient privilege. The Court has, however, left lingering questions for the lower courts to determine regarding possible exceptions to the privilege. The lower courts have used their own reason and experience to develop exceptions to the privilege. Such exceptions include the crime-fraud exception, waiver exception, and the dangerous-patient exception. Inevitably other exceptions will follow. The Supreme Court should recognize a dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege to allow a psychotherapist to testify in court when there is "a serious threat of harm to the …
Much Ado About Nothing - The Supreme Court Still Fails To Solve The General Acceptance Problem Regarding Expert Testimony And Scientific Evidence , Joseph B. Spero
Much Ado About Nothing - The Supreme Court Still Fails To Solve The General Acceptance Problem Regarding Expert Testimony And Scientific Evidence , Joseph B. Spero
Journal of Law and Health
This paper will discuss and analyze the problem of scientific evidence and expert testimony from Frye v. United States to the new grounds for admissibility established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This note will specifically focus on some of the changes made by the courts to the common law rule and follow its transformation to a more liberal standard within the federal court system. The paper will conclude that the courts have not really changed their position on the admissibility of scientific evidence and that their current criteria still are …
Chicken Little's Revenge: Strict Judicial Scrutiny Of Scientific Evidence, Scott Charles Walker
Chicken Little's Revenge: Strict Judicial Scrutiny Of Scientific Evidence, Scott Charles Walker
Cleveland State Law Review
This note focuses on the current controversy over admissibility standards for novel scientific testimony. It will trace the development of legal standards for expert witness admissibility from the common law through the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence and to the current trend of strict judicial scrutiny. In addition, this note will analyze the issues before the United States Supreme Court in Daubert and will argue, in spite of indications to the contrary, that the Court should not be too quick to continue tightening the judicial noose on scientific experts. Finally, this note will dispute the utility of amending …