AI Article Synopsis
- The Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. changed how expert testimony is admissible in court, influencing subsequent judicial rulings and opinions.
- Key questions arise regarding whether the criteria used post-Daubert for admitting expert testimony are scientifically valid, and how this has affected scientists' willingness to testify as experts.
- The analysis also explores Daubert's overall impact on the quality of science in legal proceedings, access to courts, and whether it effectively protects public policy and the public from harm.
Article Abstract
There have been changes within the judicial system that may be attributable to opinions on the admissibility of expert testimony that began with the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. After surveying Daubert and subsequent related Supreme Court opinions, I examine a number of questions. Do the factors courts apply post-Daubert in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony make scientific sense? Has Daubert had an impact on the willingness of scientists to become expert witnesses? What do we know about Daubert's impact on improving science in the court room? What has been Daubert's effect on access to the courts? Does Daubert further public policy objectives of protecting the public against harm?
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.044701 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Online communities as arenas of "amateur expertise": examples from the social media activity for justice for Roman Zadorov.
Front Sociol
December 2024
School of Communication, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.
Introduction: This study examines online communities as arenas where diverse forms of expertise converge to influence discourse and public opinion. Using the case of social media activism advocating for justice in the wrongful conviction of Roman Zadorov for the murder of Tair Rada, it highlights how these communities serve as platforms for "professional amateurs" and demonstrates their similarities and differences from participants in the formal legal arena.
Methods: The study employs a netnographic approach to analyze seven years of social media activity across 15 Facebook groups comprising over 300,000 members.
Reply to Rosenblum et al. and Carriquiry and Ommen: Understanding probative value, triers-of-fact, and usefulness of validity study results.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
November 2024
Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
Black Robes and White Coats: Daubert Standard and Medical and Legal Considerations for Medical Expert Witnesses.
Cureus
September 2024
Scientific Communications, NEMA Research, Inc., Naples, USA.
Expert testimony can play a pivotal role in a legal case involving a medical issue, but it is crucial that this testimony be scientifically sound. In the United States, the Frye Standard demanded that such expert medical testimony be "generally accepted," but it has been superseded by the more demanding Daubert Standard. Under Daubert, judges became "gatekeepers" as to what scientific material was admissible in court and what might be dismissed as junk science.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFObjective: Aim: This article is aimed at raising awareness and stimulating scientific discussion on the necessity of involving qualified medical professionals in conducting criminal procedural actions that involve intervention in human somatic rights, in order to further improve the legal instruments ensuring compliance with the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR) standards in this field.
Patients And Methods: Materials and Methods: In preparing the article, the following issues were worked out: the provisions of international legal acts; legal positions of the ECHR related to the use of medical knowledge in the criminal process; scientific studies of various aspects of the use of medical knowledge in the criminal process. The methodological basis of the research is dialectical, comparative-legal, systemic-structural, analytical, synthetic, complex research methods.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!