What has a decade of Daubert wrought?
There have been changes within the judicial system that may be attributable to opinions on the admissibility of expert testimony that began with the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. After surveying Daubert and subsequent related Supreme Court opinions, I examine a number of questions. Do the factors courts apply post-Daubert in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony make scientific sense? Has Daubert had an impact on the willingness of scientists to become expert witnesses? What do we know about Daubert's impact on improving science in the court room? What has been Daubert's effect on access to the courts? Does Daubert further public policy objectives of protecting the public against harm?
Berger
Margaret A
MA
Brooklyn Law School, 250 Joralemon Street, Room 911, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA. margaret.berger@brooklaw.edu
D004345:Drug Industry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D011634:Public Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011640:Public Policy; D012586:Science / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000379:methods; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States