Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Trouble With Daubert-Kumho: Reconsidering The Supreme Court's Philosophy Of Science, The, David Crump
Trouble With Daubert-Kumho: Reconsidering The Supreme Court's Philosophy Of Science, The, David Crump
Missouri Law Review
This Article begins with a brief exploration of the philosophy of science that is laid out in the Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho cases. It then proceeds to examine the question, “what is science”? A related section considers the disadvantages and ironic results of the Daubert-Kumho definition of science. Next, the Article considers the characteristics of a good scientific theory or model. It compares the resulting criteria to those set out in Daubert and its progeny and shows how the Supreme Court’s philosophy can produce dubious consequences. A final section sets out the conclusions, which include the possibility that the Supreme …
Peer Dialogue: The How And What Of Appropriate Validation Under Daubert: Reconsidering The Treatment Of Einstein And Freud, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Peer Dialogue: The How And What Of Appropriate Validation Under Daubert: Reconsidering The Treatment Of Einstein And Freud, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Missouri Law Review
In its landmark decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court announced that the trial judge must play a gatekeeping or screening role in deciding whether proffered expert testimony constitutes sufficiently reliable “scientific . . . knowledge” to qualify for admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Court declared that the proponent of the testimony must lay a foundation establishing “appropriate validation” for the expert’s underlying theory or technique. In order to intelligently assess the adequacy of a validation foundation, the trial judge must address two questions: what must be validated, and how should it be …