In this paper I criticize the current standards for the acceptability of expert testimony in current US legislation. The standards have been the subject of much academic literature after the Frye and Daubert cases. I expose what I call the Paradox of Proof, and argue that the historical and current standards have sidestepped the problem of determining who is an expert and who is not in a court ...

The reliability of confessions is subject to a variety of factors, some of which give rise to expert testimony. To the degree that prosecutors construe the determination of reliability as an objective standard, they may attempt to bar testimony. Moreover, when the testimony is theoretical rather than clinical, there are additional challenges. Depending on jurisdiction, the admissibility of expe...

Alban-Elouen Baruteau, MD; Albin Behaghel, MD; Swanny Fouchard, PhD; Philippe Mabo, MD; Jean-Jacques Schott, PhD; Christian Dina, MS; Stéphanie Chatel, PhD; Elisabeth Villain, MD; Jean-Benoit Thambo, MD, PhD; François Marçon, MD; Véronique Gournay, MD, PhD; Francis Rouault, MD; Alain Chantepie, MD; Sophie Guillaumont, MD; François Godart, MD, PhD; Raphaël P. Martins, MD; Béatrice Delasalle, MS;...

Hirsch, J. & Ahrens, E. H. (1958). J. biol. Chem. 233, 213. Huber, W. F. (1951). J. Amer. chem. Soc. 73, 2730. Kapp, R. & Knoll, A. (1943). J. Amer. chem. Soc. 65, 2062. Lovelock, J. E., James, A. T. & Piper, E. A. (1959). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 72, 720. Lutton, E. S. & Kolp, D. G. (1951). J. Amer. chem. Soc. 73, 2733. Patton, S., McCarthy, R. D., Evans, E. L. & Lynn, T. R. (1960). J. Dairy Sci....

I do not doubt that Rule 702 confides ~ to the judge some gatekeeping responsi~bility in deciding questions of admissibility of proffered expert testimony. But I do not think it " imposes on them either the obligation or the authority to become amateur scientists in order to perform that role. I think the Court would be far better advised in this case to decide only the questions presented, and...