The Effects of Daubert on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony in State and Federal Criminal Cases
نویسندگان
چکیده
Appellate opinions were evaluated on variables related to expert admissibility to assess the effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in criminal cases. Analysis reveals changes in appellate courts’ consideration of Frye v. United States, the 4 Daubert criteria, and several Federal Rules of Evidence. The importance of Frye and the general acceptance criterion decreased over time, and the importance of the Daubert criteria increased over time. However, these changes were not consistent for all types of testimony. Overall, there is greater reliance on Daubert when determining the admissibility of a scientific expert. However, only criteria related to the Federal Rules of Evidence are reliably related to admissibility decisions. Details of appellate court application of the 4 Daubert criteria, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and other related factors are discussed.
منابع مشابه
Experts, Mental States, and Acts
In my book Proving the Unprovable, I discussed at length the considerations that might govern the admissibility of expert psychiatric and psychological testimony in criminal and quasi-criminal cases. This evidence law symposium gives me the opportunity to elaborate on one particular thesis of that book—that the definition of expertise in the criminal justice system, derived in the federal court...
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 کاملExpert Testimony in Criminal Proceedings: Questions Daubert Does Not Answer
I strongly believe that we need a very stringent standard of proof in criminal cases. I do not think, however, that Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has been productive in effectuating this goal. In civil cases, courts engage in rigorous gatekeeping and often exclude plaintiffs’ experts because the theory underlying their testimony has not been adequately validated. But I see no sig...
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 کاملPsychological evidence at the dawn of the law's scientific age.
The Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., holding that the admissibility of scientific evidence depends on its scientific merit, has made American law receptive to valid science to an unprecedented degree. We review the implications for psychology of the law's taking science seriously. We consider the law before Daubert, and the ways that Daubert as well...
متن کامل