Law Commons^™

Toward Eliminating Bargain Basement Justice: Providing Indigent Defendants With Expert Services And An Adequate Defense, Fred Warren Bennett

Law and Contemporary Problems

No abstract provided.

Race Separatism In The Family: More On The Transracial Adoption Debate, Elizabeth Bartholet

Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy

Some twenty-five years ago a trial court in Virginia upheld the state ban on interracial marriage, reasoning that God created different races and, accordingly, that it was natural to maintain racial purity, and unnatural to engage in racial mixing. 1 At that time, many other state laws banned both interracial marriage and transracial adoption. In Loving v. Virginia, 2 the United States Supreme Court struck down the Virginia antimiscegenation law, reversing the trial court's decision and holding that it was unconstitutional for states to mandate racial separatism in the family. Later, in Palmore v. Sidoti, 3 the Court ruled that …

Arbitration Of Patent Infringement Disputes: Encouraging The Use Of Arbitration Through Evidence Rules Reform, Gregg A. Paradise

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Gaudin: A Decision With Material Impact, Jeffrey Saks

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidentiary Use (And Misuse) Of The Civil Defendant's Financial Status, Karen M. Grundy

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Calmer Seas: The Supreme Court's Major Criminal Law Rulings Of The 1993-94 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search & Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search & Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Treachery Of Perception: Evidence And Experience In Clarissa, Judy Cornett

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Evidence Law, Matthew B. Fitzer, Parmele E. Price

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Pre-Trial Proceedings: Provide For Discovery And Inspection Of Evidence By The Prosecution And Defendants In Criminal Cases, Jeffrey A. Hannah

Georgia State University Law Review

The Act provides for comprehensive discovery in criminal felony and misdemeanor trials. Evidence of alibis and in rebuttal of alibis must now be disclosed by defense and prosecution counsel at least ten days prior to trial. Access to documents, records, and results of examinations and scientific tests, and statements of witnesses must now be disclosed by the prosecution. Upon request of defense counsel, the prosecution must provide access to documents within the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution or state. The Act provides new guidelines for supplying copies of a defendant's Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) criminal history to …

The Hague Evidence Convention Revisited: Reflections On Its Role In U.S. Civil Procedure, Gary B. Born

Law and Contemporary Problems

A reworking of the basic terms of the Hague Evidence Convention is proposed. Under current law, US courts typically do not employ the Convention's evidence-taking mechanisms when ordering discovery from either a litigant or a witness subject to the court's subpoena power.

Experts, Liars, And Guns For Hire: A Different Perspective On The Qualification Of Technical Expert Witnesses, Christopher P. Murphy

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Some Implications Of Daubert And Its Potential For Misuse: Misapplication To Environmental Tort Cases And Abuse Of Rule 706(A) Court-Appointed Experts, Ellen Relkin

Cardozo Law Review

This Commentary will address an array of issues underlying and emerging from the disputes in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its inevitable progeny, from a practitioner's perspective representing plaintiffs in toxic tort litigation. It is intended to provide real examples that debunk the quaint but unrealistic notion that science is pure and insulated from economics and politics, the propagandized suggestion that it is the plaintiff's expert who promotes "fringe" or "junk" science, and the belief that epidemiology is the sine qua non of proving causation of a disease. It will also address the potential perils of the …

Impeachment By Conviction Evidence: Judicial Discretion And The Politics Of Rule 609, Victor Gold

Cardozo Law Review

No provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence has sparked more controversy than Rule 609, which deals with the admissibility of convictions to impeach a witness. When first proposed, the provision was the subject of fierce debate, sparking repeated revision during its drafting and while it was under consideration by Congress. Ultimately, no one side in this legislative battle prevailed entirely; the Rule strikes a compromise between sharply conflicting policies. The text of Rule 609, incorporating no less than three balancing tests, two references to fairness, one to justice, and several other undefined terms, leaves the task of resolving the …

Taking Daubert’S “Focus” Seriously: The Methodology/Conclusion Distinction, Kenneth J. Chesebro

Cardozo Law Review

Last June's United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., rejected the Frye "general acceptance" test for scientific evidence, and went on to make "some general observations" about proper admissibility analysis under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Daubert was the Court's first decision squarely addressing the expert testimony provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and United States Law Week called Daubert "probably the most important procedural case of the term."

Check Your Crystal Ball At The Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring The Past, Understanding The Present, And Worrying About The Future Of Scientific Evidence, David L. Faigman, Elise Porter, Michael J. Saks

Cardozo Law Review

Since the earliest days of the use of expert witnesses, judges (and more recently legislatures) have struggled to design the juridical intersection where law and science cross paths. The effort has not met with notable success. This situation could be changing, however. Last term, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court adopted a novel approach to the age-old problem of scientific evidence. The -Court determined that the Federal Rules of Evidence require scientific evidence to be scientifically valid before it enters the courtroom. The Court has served notice that experts should trade in their crystal balls …

Should Federal Evidence Rules Trump State Tort Policy? The Federalism Values Daubert Ignored, Michael H. Gottesman

Cardozo Law Review

I want to explore issues that the Supreme Court should have addressed in Daubert but did not. The Court decided that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") assigns a "gatekeeping" function to federal trial judges, who are to exclude expert scientific opinions that do not meet a standard of "reliability" vaguely sketched out in the Court's opinion.

The Daubert case involved exclusively state substantive law issues and was in federal court only because the defendant removed it from state court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The Court held the gatekeeping function applicable in diversity actions, …

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Redefining The Bases For Admissibility Of Expert Scientific Testimony, Clifton T. Hutchinson, Danny S. Ashby

Cardozo Law Review

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is not only, or even primarily, a case about the viability of Frye v. United States and "general acceptance" as the criterion for evaluating expert testimony. Principally, it is a case about the preconditions of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the sole provision in the Federal Rules that authorizes the use of expert testimony. The question as framed by petitioners in the course of argument was whether trial courts may screen scientific expert testimony under any real test. The Supreme Court answered this question strongly in the affirmative.

Petitioners' recurring theme was that Rule …

The Impact Of Daubert On The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: The Supreme Court Catches Up With A Decade Of Jurisprudence, Arvin Maskin

Cardozo Law Review

Over the past several years a host of new civil damage theories has emerged, notably in the mass tort area. These include claims for increased risk of disease, fear of disease, hedonic damages, immunotoxicity, and medical surveillance. In the great majority of these cases, the dispositive issue reduces to causation, which invariably turns upon scientific evidence. Moreover, the stakes in these cases have greatly escalated. For example, the $180 million settlement in the Agent Orange case seemed like a lot of money in 1984, until several years later when the Dalkon Shield litigation, which involved the sale of a single …

Conflict Resolution In The Courts: The Role Of Science, Anthony Z. Roisman

Cardozo Law Review

This Article is a philosophical examination of an issue that now engages many lawyers and scientists-the proper role of science in courtroom litigation. More specifically, the issue is this: In cases where expert testimony is useful to lay jurors in resolving factual issues, what is the proper role of a judge in restricting what sorts of experts can testify and what they can say?

Daubert: Interpreting The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Cardozo Law Review

In 1992 Judge Becker and Professor Orenstein referred to the Frye issue - the admissibility of novel scientific evidence-as the "most controversial and important unresolved question" in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Indeed, during the prior decade the federal courts had battled over the issue, as had their state counterparts. Similarly, text writers and law review commentators vigorously disagreed about the proper standard for admitting scientific evidence. While one ABA report on the Federal Rules explored the Frye issue and concluded that it "is not clear that any standard would produce agreement at the moment," another report cited it as …

The Meaning Of Daubert And What That Means For Forensic Science, Randolph N. Jonakait

Cardozo Law Review

Daubert's effect on forensic science is unclear because the opinion is unclear. The Daubert Court did start blazing a useful path by stating that before scientific testimony is admitted, the trial court must be convinced that "the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and ... that [the] reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." But the Court's trailblazing was incomplete and often misleading.

The Supreme Court’S View Of Science: Has Daubert Exorcised The Certainty Demon?, Bert Black

Cardozo Law Review

The Supreme Court's mandate in Daubert that experts who give testimony based on science must confine themselves to valid scientific knowledge seems tautologically obvious, and hardly an issue requiring the attention of the nation's nine highest judges. The debate that led to Daubert was generated, however, by opponents of judicial screening who argued that holding experts to scientific standards somehow imposes an undue burden of proof on plaintiffs, especially in toxic tort cases - and the Supreme Court's decision has not put the issue completely to rest. Science, according to this "relaxed standards" argument, demands certainty far beyond the law's …

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Epistemiology And Legal Process, Margaret G. Farrell

Cardozo Law Review

Justice Blackmun's majority opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. acknowledges that law and science have different goals, but it fails to recognize the implications of those differences for legal process. Recent increases in the scientifically-based claims brought in the federal courts, and in the size and complexity of the litigation in which such claims are made, have raised the stakes in the debate. At the same time, scientific concepts of relativity, uncertainty, and multiple causation are at odds with simple, legal notions about fact-finding and cause and effect. This disparity between legal and scientific understandings over the admission …

After Daubert: Going Forward With Lessons From The Past, Marc S. Klein

Cardozo Law Review

Ground zero in the ongoing battle over scientific evidence in toxic tort cases has clearly shifted in light of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In that case, the Supreme Court settled at least two profound issues. One has immediate practical consequences, the other has important philosophical implications.

Solomon Meets Galileo (And Isn’T Quite Sure What To Do With Him), Brian Stuart Koukoutchos

Cardozo Law Review

Unlike most of the other panelists, I am neither a tort lawyer nor an evidence scholar. I became involved in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. because I am a Supreme Court advocate and was asked to author a brief amici curiae on behalf of an eclectic group of physicians, scientists, historians of science, and sociologists of science who were dismayed by the Ninth Circuit's opinion and wished to advise the Supreme Court on the nature of science and its uses in the courtroom. Accordingly, I am not particularly interested in engaging in the sort of spin-control about Daubert that …

The Next Step After Daubert: Developing A Similarly Epistemological Approach To Ensuring The Reliability Of Nonscientific Expert Testimony, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Cardozo Law Review

On June 28, 1993, after much fanfare, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The decision was not only preceded by intense media attention; the decision was also immediately followed by a massive-and growing-volume of commentary. As is usually true with landmark decisions, it is imperative to identify what the Court decided and what the Court left unresolved.