Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Newsroom: Kuckes On Discovery Ruling 7-7-2016, Sheri Qualters, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Newsroom: Kuckes On Discovery Ruling 7-7-2016, Sheri Qualters, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz
Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that a “chemist” as defined by NRS § 50.320must be qualified as an expert in a Nevada court of record prior to the admission of his or her affidavit attesting to an individual’s blood-alcohol concentration in a driver’s license revocation hearing
Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng
Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
For over twenty years, and particularly since the Supreme Court's Daubert' decision in 1993, much ink has been spilled debating the problem of scientific evidence in the courts. Are jurors or, in the alternative, judges qualified to assess scientific reliability? Do courts really need to be concerned about "junk science"? What mechanisms can promote better decision making in scientific cases? Even a cursory scan of the literature shows the recent explosion of interest in these issues, precipitating new treatises, hundreds of articles, and countless conferences for judges, practitioners, and academics.
Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon
Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Nearly every treatment of scientific evidence begins with a faithful comparison between the Frye and Daubert standards. Since 1993, jurists and legal scholars have spiritedly debated which standard is preferable and whether particular states should adopt one standard or the other. These efforts beg the question: Does a state's choice of scientific admissibility standard matter? A growing number of scholars suspect that the answer is no. Under this theory, the import of the Supreme Court's Daubert decision was not in its doctrinal standard, but rather in the general consciousness it raised about the problems of unreliable scientific evidence. This Article …
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Expert Qualifications: Traps For The Unwary, Paul C. Giannelli
Expert Qualifications: Traps For The Unwary, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood
"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In this article the author pulls together a history of expert witnesses in common law systems. Various issues are explored regarding expert witness testimony, including: the historical underpinnings of the practice, how Daubert controls that issue in modern times, rules of evidence, psychological science, and professional ethics.
Book Review Of Litigation Services Directory, James S. Heller
Book Review Of Litigation Services Directory, James S. Heller
Library Staff Publications
No abstract provided.
Expert Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli
Expert Testimony, Paul C. Giannelli