Failure of Rorschach-Comprehensive-System-Based Testimony to Be Admissible Under the Daubert–Joiner–Kumho Standard
نویسندگان
چکیده
The Comprehensive System for the Rorschach (RCS) is currently the subject of intense scientific criticism. The normative data for many RCS scores are seriously in error and tend to make normal individuals appear maladjusted. Reliability is inadequate for many RCS scores, and validity for the great majority of RCS scores has not been adequately demonstrated. In addition, a substantial number of Rorschach Workshops studies, cited by B. Ritzler, R. Erard, and G. Pettigrew (2002) as supportive of the RCS, are unavailable for examination. Finally, B. Ritzler et al. misinterpret central issues of the relevant legal analysis, including crucial legal standards. The RCS clearly fails to meet the standards for admissibility set forth in the Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho decisions.
منابع مشابه
PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY-OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM The Admissibility of Testimony From Mental Health Experts Under Daubert/Kumho Analyses
The authors discussed to what degree testimony from social science and mental health experts (psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, therapists, others) meets admissibility requirements expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert (1993), Joiner (General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 1997) and the recent Kumho (1999) decision. They reviewed data on Daubert/Kumho indicia of reliability using ...
متن کاملHandwriting Evidence in Federal Courts - From Frye to Kumho.
In federal courts, the admissibility of scientific expert testimony in the last century has been governed by three major standards. The first of these standards, the "general acceptance" test, arose from the 1923 Frye v. United States (Frye) and required that any technique or method introduced in court be generally accepted by the relevant community of scientists. The more liberal "relevancy" s...
متن کاملAttorney abuses of Daubert hearings: junk science, junk law, or just plain obstruction?
The U.S. Supreme Court case of Daubert v. MerrellDow Pharmaceuticals focused attention on the problem of “junk science” testimony in the courtroom, a decision that led to the emergence of the Daubert hearing as a pre-trial screening device for determining the reliability and relevance of expert testimony. Similar to other useful legal procedural safeguards of due process, alas, the Daubert hear...
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 کاملDaubert, cognitive malingering, and test accuracy.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) held that trial judges should permit expert scientific testimony only when "the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid, and ... properly can be applied to the facts in issue." Vallabhajosula and van Gorp ("V & vG," 2001) have suggested that when the Daubert standard is applied to tests for malingered cognitive defi...
متن کامل