Science and Technology Law Commons^™

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.

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?

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 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.

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

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 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 …

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 …

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 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 …

In Appreciation Of Jack Burns, Frank J. Macchiarola

Cardozo Law Review

Jacob Burns was a good and gentle man. He did many fine and generous things in his lifetime, but the qualities that best describe him are the personal ones-good and gentle. The gentleness did not mean that he was unable to handle difficult matters or to exert the kind of strength that gave others solace. It meant that through these situations there was a contentment that always reassured the rest of us. The gentleness came from his concern for others and in the way he approached people. It was always thrilling for me to see Jack Burns in the company …

The Moment Of Constitutional Opportunity, Marci A. Hamilton

Cardozo Law Review

Professor Sunstein speaks perceptively to the debate over how the Eastern European countries should proceed following their sudden constitutional crises. The Eastern European framer would do well to keep his checklist of constitutional features at hand. Two aspects of his task, however, raise rather interesting and related questions. At base, I raise the question of whether Eastern Europe has reached the "moment of constitutional opportunity" that Professor Sunstein asserts it has.

Why The “Look And Feel” Of Computer Software Should Not Receive Copyright Protection, Matthew J. Fortnow

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Offers Users Can't Refuse: Shrink-Wrap License Agreements As Enforceable Adhesion Contracts, Michael G. Ryan

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protecting The Look And Feel Of Computer Programs, Jeffrey Weitzman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

On Not Compensating For Bad Outcomes To Biomedical Innovations: A Response And Modest Proposal, Alan J. Weisbard

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Electrifying The First Amendment, Mark S. Nadel

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fair Use And New Technology: The Appropriate Standards To Apply, Adrienne J. Marsh

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Theory Of Overclaiming And Its Application To Diamond V. Diehr, Robert A. Kreiss

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.