Evidence Commons^™

Defining Reliable Forensic Economics In The Post-Daubert/Kumho Tire Era: Case Studies From Antitrust, Andrew I. Gavil

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Banishing Ipse Dixit: The Impact Of Kumho Tire On Forensic Identification Science, Michael J. Saks

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Violence Risk Assessment: Scientific Validity And Evidentiary Admissibility, John Monahan

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are Prosecutorial Ethics Standards Different?, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Faculty Publications

Once a prosecutor determines to employ an expert, a number of distinct decisions must be confronted-from choosing the expert, to complying with discovery obligations, to presenting the testimony at trial. Part I of this essay considers the selection of experts. Although improper selection of experts can be viewed as merely another aspect of presenting misleading testimony, we treat it separately in this essay because the literature typically ignores it. Part 1I examines the pretrial disclosure of scientific evidence. The issues that have arisen in this context include late disclosure, omitting information from laboratory reports, declining to have a report prepared, …

How Good Is Good Enough?: Expert Evidence Under Daubert And Kuhmo, David H. Kaye, David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders

Faculty Scholarship

This essay is a response to Professor Edward Imwinkelried's article, "Should the Courts Incorporate a Best Evidence Rule into the Standard Determining the Admissibility of Scientific Testimony?: Enough is Enough When it is not the Best." The authors have two basic points. First, the authors wish to make it clear that they never proposed the "best evidence rule" that he so vigorously attacks, and they think his suggestion that they did so is strained. Second, they wish to reiterate that courts sometimes should do more than they have to ensure that expert testimony is reasonably sound. The important debate underway …

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dna As Evidence: Viewing Science Through The Prism Of The Law, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this article, we analyze a problem related to DNA evidence that is likely to be of great and increasing significance in the near future. This is the problem of whether, and how, to present evidence that the suspect has been identified through a DNA database search. In our view, the two well-known reports on DNA evidence issued by the National Research Council (NRC) have been badly mistaken in their analysis of this problem. The mistakes are significant because the reports have carried great authority with American courts; moreover, the DNA Advisory Board of the FBI has endorsed the second …

Jury Trial Techniques In Complex Civil Litigation, Ronald S. Longhofer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Ronald Longhofer, an experienced litigator, discusses the challenges inherent in trying a complex civil case to a jury. He explores aspects of complex litigation that often impede jurors from effectively hearing such cases. In conclusion, he suggests litigation techniques which have proved successful in overcoming such obstacles and effectively translating complex evidence to jurors.

The Law And The Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence Of Intent, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Rill

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

This essay addresses the issue of judges deciding what scientific evidence is admissible. The primary focus is the admissibility of expert mental state testimony in criminal cases. The issue is addressed by answering two questions: 1) how does science work and 2) how does the brain work?

Right To Inspect And Test Breath Alcohol Machines: Suspicion Ain't Proof, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1999), Gil Sapir, Mark Giangrande

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dna Database Searches And The Legal Consumption Of Scientific Evidence, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

DNA evidence has transformed the proof of identity in criminal litigation, but it has also introduced daunting problems of statistical analysis into the process. In this Article, we analyze a problem related to DNA evidence that is likely to be of great and increasing significance in the near future. This is the problem of whether, and how, to present evidence that the suspect has been identified through a DNA database search. In our view, the two well-known reports on DNA evidence issued by the National Research Council ("NRC"), each of which has carried great authority with the American courts on …

Seeing Is Believing: A Practitioner's Guide To The Admissibility Of Demonstrative Computer Evidence, 1998 John M. Manos Writing Competition On Evidence , Karen D. Butera

Cleveland State Law Review

As computer equipment itself becomes more financially accessible, more experts are using computer simulations as demonstrative evidence during their trial testimony. However, this use of computer simulations presents several novel, complex issues. Part II will explore the backgrounds of demonstrative evidence, computerization, and the use of computer simulation for demonstrative evidence. Part III will discuss and analyze several relevant issues, including attorney training, expert knowledge, judicial confusion, additional evidentiary issues, and the possible prejudicial influence of demonstrative computer simulations. This discussion concludes with some general thoughts regarding the use of demonstrative computer simulation to illustrate expert testimony.

Conflicts Of Interest In Scientific Expert Testimony, Mark R. Patterson

Faculty Scholarship

Conflicts of interest have significant implications for the reliability of scientific expert testimony. However, the courts' treatment of conflicts is not always in accord either with the treatment of conflicts in scientific practice or with the particular problems that scientists' conflicts present in court. In response, this Article proposes two basic changes in the treatment of scientific expert testimony. First, courts should strive to separate issues of bias from issues of scientific validity-the two sets of issues are now conflated at times. Second, courts should pay more attention to biases of scientists who perform the research underlying expert testimony, whereas …

The Epistemology Of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy Of Science Would Not Make For Good Philosophy Of Evidence, Brian Leiter

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Assessment Of Expertise: Transcending Construction, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Introduction: O.J. Simpson And The Criminal Justice System On Trial, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Technology Comes To The Courtroom, And . . ., Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

On The Relevance Of The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: Tort System Outcomes Are Principally Determined By Lawyers’ Rates Of Return, Lester Brickman

Cardozo Law Review

The attention generated by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reflects the perceived importance of the issue of the admissibility of scientific evidence in tort litigation. In products liability litigation, whether claimants prevail often depends upon expert testimony presented on the issue of causation. Unless a claimant is able to have the expert's testimony admitted, there will be little or no chance of prevailing. Thus, though it is disputed whether Daubert will extend or contract tort liability, it is undisputed that its importance lies in its impact on the scope of tort liability.

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 …

Table Of Contents - Cardozo Law Review, Volume 15, Issues 6-7

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 …

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?

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 …

Dna And Daubert, Barry C. Scheck

Cardozo Law Review

The most intriguing aspect of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is that the Supreme Court never applied its new analytic framework for the admissibility of scientific evidence to the facts of the case. Either the deviltry, or the genius, of the Daubert decision lies in the details.

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.

The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence After Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., David E. Bernstein

Cardozo Law Review

This past June, the Supreme Court decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the most important case involving the admissibility of scientific evidence in seventy years. While some analysts have argued that Daubert will encourage the trend toward more careful judicial scrutiny of scientific evidence, others have contended that the opinion will reduce the role of the courts in screening scientific evidence and permit a flood of junk science evidence into American courtrooms. The early evidence strongly suggests that the former view is correct. So far, most federal courts are interpreting Daubert as giving them wide authority to restrict …

Controversial Science In The Courtroom: Daubert And The Law's Hubris, Paul S. Milich

Faculty Publications By Year

No abstract provided.