Law Commons^™

Life After Daubert V. Merrell Dow: Maine As A Case Law Laboratory For Evidence Rule 702 Without Frye, Leigh Stephens Mccarthy

Maine Law Review

In reaching its recent decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court grappled not with case law but with fundamental questions about the nature of science and its role in law. The court in Daubert addressed the problematic issue of admissibility of expert scientific testimony. In the end the Court rejected as an exclusionary rule the venerable standard set in 1923 by Frye v. United States. Frye held that scientific testimony was to be excluded unless it had gained “general acceptance” in its field. Daubert held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence …

Diamonds In The Rough: A Review Of Tiffany V. Costco And A Call To Apply Daubert To The Admissibility Of Consumer Survey Evidence In Trademark Infringement Litigation, Michael J. Borger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scientific Evidence And Forensic Science Since Daubert: Maine Decides To Sit Out On The Dance, Thomas L. Bohan

Maine Law Review

In 1993, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that with the federal adoption of statutory rules of evidence in 1975, the common law rule for determining admissibility of scientific testimony was superseded, and that thenceforth admissibility of scientific testimony was to be determined solely by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (Rule 702). The Frye standard had been adopted in one form or another by most of the federal circuits and by many of the state courts during the 70 years preceding Daubert. Referred to as the “general acceptance” standard, the Frye standard--although adopted in a variety of forms--had …

When Religious Belief Becomes Scientific Opinion: Burwell V. Hobby Lobby And The Unraveling Of Federal Rule 702, Meredith Rachel Mandell

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

The Increasing Use Of Challenges To Expert Evidence Under Daubert And Rule 702 In Patent Litigation, Douglas G. Smith

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Scientific Evidence In The Age Of Daubert: A Proposal For A Dual Standard Of Admissibility In Civil And Criminal Cases , William P. Haney Iii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sixth Amendment And Expert Witnesses In Criminal Tax Cases, Steve R. Johnson

Scholarly Publications

Recently, in the Baxter case, a federal district court vacated the sentence imposed as a result of a guilty plea in a criminal tax case. The court held that the failure of defense counsel to retain the services of an expert in tax crimes sentencing violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective representation.

This installment of the Tax Crimes column explores Baxter. Part A briefly notes the civil and criminal tax contexts in which tax experts are used. Part B describes Baxter and its holding. Part C asks whether defense counsel in criminal tax cases should always retain a …

A Moving Bar Approach To Assessing The Admissibility Of Expert Causation Testimony, Aaron Katz

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article argues that the Supreme Court's decisions in Daubert and Joiner imply an approach to the reliability, and hence admissibility, of causation experts that conflicts with the way in which courts traditionally had determined whether to allow the jury to speculate on uncertain causation-in-fact questions. Largely moving past the debate of whether Daubert and Joiner set the admissibility bar too high or low, the Article instead criticizes the decisions on the ground that they suggest that the height of the reliability bar is static and should not be adjusted depending upon the circumstances of the defendant's possibly injurious conduct. …

The Other Shoe Drops: Minnesota Rejects Daubert, Peter B. Knapp

Faculty Scholarship

In 1991, the United States Supreme Court handed decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., rejecting the long-standing federal test for the admissibility of scientific testimony articulated in Frye v. United States. Unlike many states, however, which embraced Daubert within years--or even months--of the federal decision, Minnesota declined to make Daubert the law of the jurisdiction. In a pair of cases decided in 2000, Goeb v. Tharaldson and Sentinel Mgmt. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, the court held that Minnesota would retain the general acceptance test. The court's rejection of Daubert can be read as an attempt to give the …

Expert Testimony To Accommodate The Frye, Daubert, And Kumho Tire Standards Of Admissibility, Rhoda B. Billings

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are Forensic Locksmiths Really Qualified To Testify As Experts In Cases Of Insurance Fraud: An Examination Of The Admissibility Of Forensic Locksmith Opinions Under Rule 702, Chad A. Hester

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note will argue that while forensic locksmiths may be qualified as experts under Rule 702, they should not necessarily be qualified to testify as to which key started a vehicle last. Part I of this note will discuss the basic history and case law which has established the requirements necessary to qualify an expert to testify under the Rule 702. In addition, Part I will discuss the recently enacted amendments to Rule 702 and how the amended Rule 702 has expanded the admissibility of expert witnesses. Part II of this note will discuss the generally accepted procedures of forensic …

Federal Rules Of Evidence: Raising The Bar On Adminissibility Of Expert Testimony: Can Your Expert Make The Grade After Kumho Tire V. Carmichael, Douglas B. Maddock Jr.

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doubts About Daubert: Psychiatric Anecdata As A Case Study, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Supreme Court sensibly held that testimony purporting to be scientific is admissible only if it possesses sufficient indicia of scientific validity. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the Court more questionably held that opinion evidence based on "technical" and "specialized" knowledge must meet the same admissibility threshold as scientific testimony. This Article addresses the implications of these two decisions for opinion evidence presented by mental health professionals in criminal trials.

Iola And Daubert (Symposium: The Supreme Court And Local Government Law: The 1997-98 Term), Leon D. Lazer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Rule 702: Testimony By Experts

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Depositions And Oral Testimony [Outline], M.E. (Sandy) Macdougall

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

16 pages.