Law Commons^™

Race, Gatekeeping, Magical Words, And The Rules Of Evidence, Bennet Capers -- Professor Of Law

Vanderbilt Law Review

Although it might not be apparent from the Federal Rules of Evidence themselves, or the common law that preceded them, there is a long history in this country of tying evidence-what is deemed relevant, what is deemed trustworthy-to race. And increasingly, evidence scholars are excavating that history. Indeed, not just excavating, but showing how that history has racial effects that continue into the present.

One area that has escaped racialized scrutiny-at least of the type I am interested in-is that of expert testimony. Even in my own work on race and evidence, I have avoided discussion of expert testimony. In …

The Consensus Rule: A New Approach To Scientific Evidence, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Founded on good intentions but unrealistic expectations, the dominant Daubert framework for handling expert and scientific evidence should be scrapped. Daubert asks judges and jurors to make substantively expert determinations, a task they are epistemically incompetent to perform as laypersons. As an alternative, this Article proposes a new framework for handling expert evidence. It draws from the social and philosophical literature on expertise and begins with a basic question: How can laypersons make intelligent decisions about expert topics? From there, it builds its evidentiary approach, which ultimately results in an inference rule focused on expert communities. Specifically, when dealing with …

Offender Profiling And Expert Testimony: Scientifically Valid Or Glorified Results?, James A. George

Vanderbilt Law Review

A hallmark of Sherlock Holmes is his ability to solve complex crimes with well-staged performances. His flair for the shrewd and dramatic apprehension of a suspect in an inscrutable case often left his loyal companion Watson in awe, the local police investigators mystified, and the perpetrator thwarted. Holmes's admirers speculated that he must have had a special gift, maybe even psychic powers, which allowed him to solve any case. In reality, as Holmes always explained to his slow-witted companions, it was his insightful, rational, and logical approach to solving the mystery that inexorably led him to the solution.

Depictions of …

Experts, Mental States, And Acts, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article, written for a symposium on "Guilt v. Guiltiness: Are the Right Rules for Trying Factual Innocence Inevitably the Wrong Rules for Trying Culpability?," argues that the definition of expertise in the criminal justice system, derived in the federal courts and in most states from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Co., should vary depending on whether the issue involved is past mental state or past conduct. While expert psychological testimony about past acts ought to be based on scientifically verifiable assertions, expert psychological testimony about subjective mental states relevant to criminal responsibility need not meet the same threshold. This …

The Structure Of Expertise In Criminal Cases, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This essay, part of a two-issue symposium on the implications of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and its progeny, is built around three propositions about expert testimony and criminal cases. First, the "Daubert trilogy's" focus on verifiability as the threshold for expert testimony pushes the criminal justice system away from the notion that knowledge is socially constructed and toward a positivist epistemology that assumes we can know things objectively. Second, in the long run, that development will be good for prosecutors and bad for criminal defendants, given the different types of expertise on which they rely. Third, the consequence of …

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: Pushing The Limits Of Scientific Reliability--The Questionable Wisdom Of Abandoning The Peer Review Standard For Admitting Expert Testimony, Alan W. Tamarelli, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

Historically, trial courts have been cautious about allowing juries to hear testimony from scientific experts. When a testifying expert professes to have knowledge in a specialized field, juries often find sorting out issues of credibility and relevance difficult and confusing.' Therefore, federal courts traditionally have attempted to exclude expert testimony if its basis has not yet gained a requisite degree of acceptance within a relevant community of experts. The justification for this limitation is that those people who are in the best position to understand and evaluate this evidence-other experts-should make judgments about the reliability of scientific evidence. This contingent …

Expert Testimony On Proximate Cause, Daniel J. Steinbeck, William M. Richman, Douglas E. Ray

Vanderbilt Law Review

Expert testimony is common in tort litigation, especially on issues of standard of care and cause-in-fact. Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and its state counterparts abolished the prohibition of testimony on ultimate issues, leading to the possibility of expert testimony on the often crucial issue of proximate cause. The situation is easy to imagine. After counsel has qualified an expert witness and elicited an opinion that the particular act or omission "caused" the injury in question, counsel might very well be tempted to inquire whether the witness has an opinion as to whether the act or omission …

Policing The Bases Of Modern Expert Testimony, Ronald L. Carlson

Vanderbilt Law Review

Technical witnesses have revolutionized the American lawsuit. Advertisements in litigation periodicals bear witness to the broad range of courtroom expert testimony available to the trial bar. A specialist in airplane pilot error places an advertisement on the same page with an advertiser who is eminently qualified to provide expert testimony in churning securities litigation."' Also included are obscenity experts for criminal cases as well as a timber products specialist with "global experience in accidents and related cases," who claims, "more than 30 years experience with wood utility poles."' Within the category of timber and woods there are other experts as …

The Expert As Educator: A Proposed Approach To The Use Of Battered Woman Syndrome Expert Testimony, Meredith B. Cross

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development proposes that courts should permit the use of battered woman syndrome expert testimony, but restrict its use to informing juries of the peculiar mental and emotional state of battered women. This role of the expert as educator would serve to dispel a jury's misconceptions about battered women and, at the same time, draw the focus of the testimony away from the implication which troubled the Buhrle court--that the battered woman syndrome represents a new defense to murder.The Advisory Committee explains in a note that rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence suggests the use of expert …

The Basis Of Medical Testimony, Paul D. Rheingold

Vanderbilt Law Review

Like any other expert, the medical witness is brought into court to render an opinion upon technical issues involved in a case. Fundamental to the opinions or conclusions which the medical witness renders is a matrix of data learned, observed or related, both fact and opinion. These subsidiary items, taken together, are commonly referred to as the basis of expert testimony. Thus a doctor, in testifying on the cause of a patient's condition, for example, might refer to and rely upon what he has observed in examining the patient, upon what the patient has told him of his symptoms, and …

Expert Testimony, Mason Ladd

Vanderbilt Law Review

The opinion rule of exclusion and the use of expert testimony, like much of the law of evidence, developed out of the adversary system of trial. Not until the Eighteenth Century was the opinion rule established, and although the courts had used witnesses with special knowledge to assist them in obtaining needed information, expert witnesses were not used in the modern sense.' There were also inquisitorial hearings in which the inquisitors were all persons with specialized experience, but this was not similar to the use of experts today as the inquisitors determined the issue upon the basis of their own …