Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M.J. Saks (2000)
The aftermath of Daubert: An evolving jurisprudence of expert evidenceJurimetrics, 40
C. Slobogin (1999)
The admissibility of behavioral science information in criminal trials: From primitivism to Daubert to voice.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5
H. Manne, Paul Rubin (1999)
Case Western Reserve Law Review
D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, J. Sanders (2000)
Reply essay: How good is good enough?: Expert evidence under Daubert and KumhoCase Western Reserve University Law Review, 50
M. Saks (2000)
The Aftermath of Daubert (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)): An Evolving Jurisprudence of Expert Evidence
Kristina Needham (1998)
QUESTIONING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF NONSCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY AFTER DAUBERT: THE NEED FOR INCREASED JUDICIAL GATEKEEPING TO ENSURE THE RELIABILITY OF ALL EXPERT TESTIMONYFordham Urban Law Journal, 25
J. Gastwirth (1997)
Reference Manual on Scientific EvidenceThe American Statistician, 51
Steven Penrod, Solomon Fulero, B. Cutler (1995)
Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: the state of the law and the science.Behavioral sciences & the law, 13 2
W. Grove (1999)
Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The Admissibility of Testimony from Mental Health Experts under Daubert/Kumho AnalysesPsychology, Public Policy and Law, 5
J. Goodman-Delahunty (1997)
Forensic Psychological Expertise in the Wake of DaubertLaw and Human Behavior, 21
J. Laser (1997)
Inconsistent Gatekeeping in Federal Courts: Application of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to Nonscientific Expert TestimonyLoyola of Los Angeles law review, 30
C. Slobogin (1998)
Psychiatric Evidence in Criminal Trials: To Junk or Not to Junk?William and Mary law review, 40
P. Lavrakas (1988)
Telephone survey methods : sampling, selection, and supervisionJournal of the American Statistical Association, 83
Erica Beecher-Monas (1999)
A Ray of Light For Judges Blinded by Science: Triers of Science and Intellectual Due Process
L. M. Agrimonti (1995)
The limitations of Daubert and its misapplication to quasi–scientific expertsWashburn Law Journal, 35
J. Donohue, Peter Siegelman (1990)
Studying the Iceberg from Its Tip: A Comparison of Published and Unpublished Employment Discrimination CasesLaw & Society Review, 27
D. Dwyer (1994)
Federal rules of evidence supercede general acceptance standard for admissibility of scientific evidenceSuffolk University Law Review, 28
Leonard Saxe, G. Ben-Shakhar (1999)
Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post- Daubert .Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5
R. Stubblefield (1966)
Behavioral sciences and the law.The American journal of orthopsychiatry, 36 5
Scott Decker (1979)
Law and Society ReviewJournal of Drug Issues, 9
H. Watkins (1994)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: General Acceptance RejectedSanta Clara High Technology Law Journal, 10
D. Dillman (1979)
Mail and telephone surveys : the total design methodSocial Forces, 11
S. Jasanoff (1993)
What judges should know about the sociology of scienceJudicature, 77
G. Fenner (1996)
Daubert Handbook: The Case, Its Essential Dilemma, and Its Progeny, The
C. R. Showalter (1995)
Distinguishing science from pseudo–science in psychiatry: Expert testimony in the post–Daubert eraVirginia Journal of Social Policy and Law, 2
S. Gatowski, S. Dobbin, J. Richardson, G. Ginsburg (1997)
The globalization of behavioral science evidence about battered women: a theory of production and diffusion.Behavioral sciences & the law, 15 3
S. Dobbin, S. Gatowski, G. Ginsburg, Mara Merlino, Veronica Dahir, J. Richardson (2001)
Surveying Difficult Populations: Lessons Learned from a National Survey of State Trial Court JudgesJustice System Journal, 22
T. Renaker (1996)
Evidentiary Legerdemain: Deciding When Daubert Should Apply to Social Science EvidenceCalifornia Law Review, 84
D. Douglas (1973)
William and Mary Law ReviewThe Military Law and the Law of War Review
David Faigman (1995)
The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert : Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge?Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1
D. A. Dillman (1999)
Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method
Donald Songer (1988)
Nonpublication in the United States District Courts: Official Criteria Versus Inferences from Appellate ReviewThe Journal of Politics, 50
(1999)
Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony
S. Odgers, J. T. Richardson (1995)
Keeping bad science out of the courtroom: Changes in Australian and American expert evidence lawUniversity of New South Wales Law Review, 18
J.T. Richardson, G. P. Ginsburg, S. I. Gatowski, S. A. Dobbin (1995)
The problem of applying Daubert to psychological syndrome evidenceJudicature, 79
M. H. Gottesman (1994)
Admissibility of expert testimony after Daubert: The prestige factorEmory Law Journal, 43
C. Cowan, R. Groves, P. Biemer, L. Lyberg, J. Massey, W. Nicholls, J. Waksberg (1990)
Telephone Survey Methodology.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86
Stephen Odgers, James Richardson (1995)
Keeping Bad Science out of the Courtroom - Changes in American and Australian Expert Evidence LawUniversity of New South Wales law journal, 18
D. Risinger, M. Saks (1996)
Science and Nonscience in the Courts: Daubert Meets Handwriting Identification ExpertiseIowa Law Review, 82
D. Krauss, B. Sales (1999)
The problem of "helpfulness" in applying Daubert to expert testimony: Child custody determinations in family law as an exemplar.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5
J. T. Richardson (1994)
Dramatic changes in American expert evidence law: From Frye to Daubert, with special attention to implications for social and behavioural science evidenceJudicial Review, 2
David Faigman, A. Wright (1997)
The Battered Woman Syndrome in the Age of Sciencethe Arizona Law Review, 39
M. Berger (1994)
Procedural Paradigms for Applying the Daubert TestMinnesota Law Review, 78
A. Schwartz (1997)
A ‘dogma of empiricism’ revisited: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the need to resurrect the philosophical insight of Frye v. United StatesHarvard Journal of Law and Technology, 10
D. Shuman, B. Sales (1999)
The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5
K. DeVyver (1999)
Opening the Door but Keeping the Lights Off: Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael and the Applicability of the Daubert Test to Nonscientific EvidenceCase Western Reserve law review, 50
Drawing on the responses provided by a survey of state court judges (N = 400), empirical evidence is presented with respect to judges’ opinions about the Daubert criteria, their utility as decision-making guidelines, the level to which judges understand their scientific meaning, and how they might apply them when evaluating the admissibility of expert evidence. Proportionate stratified random sampling was used to obtain a representative sample of state court judges. Part I of the survey was a structured telephone interview (response rate of 71%) and in Part II, respondents had an option of completing the survey by telephone or receiving a questionnaire in the mail (response rate of 81%). Survey results demonstrate that judges overwhelmingly support the “gatekeeping” role as defined by Daubert, irrespective of the admissibility standard followed in their state. However, many of the judges surveyed lacked the scientific literacy seemingly necessitated by Daubert. Judges had the most difficulty operationalizing falsifiability and error rate, with only 5% of the respondents demonstrating a clear understanding of falsifiability and only 4% demonstrating a clear understanding of error rate. Although there was little consensus about the relative importance of the guidelines, judges attributed more weight to general acceptance as an admissibility criterion. Although most judges agreed that a distinction could be made between “scientific” and “technical or otherwise specialized” knowledge, the ability to apply the Daubert guidelines appeared to have little bearing on whether specific types of expert evidence were designated as “science” or “nonscience.” Moreover, judges’ “bench philosophy of science” seemed to reflect the rhetoric, rather than the substance, of Daubert. Implications of these results for the evolving relationship between science and law and the ongoing debates about Frye, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho are discussed.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Oct 1, 2001
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.