The Effects of the Daubert Trilogy in Delaware Superior Court
نویسنده
چکیده
Jessica P Hodge, M.S. University of Delaware Project Staff Introduction Although scientific knowledge is extraordinarily valuable as it assists the trier of fact to make an informed, legal decision, courts continue to struggle with admissibility decisions that evaluate such evidence. Judges must differentiate relevant and reliable experts from the socalled “hired guns” motivated by money alone, and such decisions have significant consequences.
منابع مشابه
Quantitative EEG and the Frye and Daubert standards of admissibility.
The 70-year-old Frye standards of "general acceptance" were replaced by the Supreme Court's 1993 Daubert criteria of the scientific method, which established the standards for admissibility of evidence in Federal Court. The four Daubert criteria were: 1- Hypothesis testing, 2- Estimates of error rates, 3- Peer reviewed publication and 4- General acceptance (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical...
متن کاملDoes Anyone Get Stopped at the Gate? An Empirical Assessment of the Daubert Trilogy in the States
The Supreme Court’s trilogy of evidence cases, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire appear to mark a significant departure in the way scientific and expert evidence is handled in federal court. By focusing on the underlying methods used to generate the experts’ conclusions, Daubert has the potential to impose a more rigorous standard on experts. Given this potential, some individuals have called for...
متن کاملThe Arts of Persuasion in Science and Law: Conflicting Norms in the Courtroom
The Daubert trilogy and the calls for reform that preceded it have echoed through the legal and scientific communities since the early 1990s. Much has been made of the limited views of the scientific enterprise reflected in the Supreme Court’s decisions. Critics argue that the Court accepted a standardized view of science that serves the interests of the business community and key elements of o...
متن کاملDaubert Asks the Right Questions: Now Appellate Courts Should Help Find the Right Answers
Daubert is one of the more important decisions of the twentieth century because it changed fundamentally the relationship between law and science. Prior to Daubert, the law deferred to the scientific community on the question whether answers that scientists provide are sufficiently grounded in theory and practice to be trusted and acted upon by courts. After Daubert, judges are charged independ...
متن کاملF INANCE R ESEARCH S EMINAR S UPPORTED BY U NIGESTION “ Good monitoring , bad monitoring
Are courts effective monitors of corporate decisions? In a controversial landmark case, the Delaware Supreme Court held directors personally liable for breaching their fiduciary duties, signaling a sharp increase in Delaware‘s scrutiny over corporate decisions. In our event study, low-growth Delaware firms outperformed matched nonDelaware firms by 1% in the three day event window. In contrast, ...
متن کامل