Add to ORKGIn Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Supreme Court sensibly held that testimony purporting to be scientific is admissible only if it possesses sufficient indicia of scientific validity. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the Court more questionably held that opinion evidence based on technical and specialized knowledge must meet the same admissibility threshold as scientific testimony. This Article addresses the implications of these two decisions for opinion evidence presented by mental health professionals in criminal trials
The controversy over the proper standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence is an argument...
The goal of this paper is to outline the legal and scientific implications of the admissibility stan...
For almost three-quarters of a century, the venerable standard announced in Frye v. United States go...
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Supreme Court sensibly held that testimony purpo...
This article, written for a symposium on Guilt v. Guiltiness: Are the Right Rules for Trying Factua...
This article, part of a symposium on the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Logerquist v. McVey...
The piece briefly traces the history of the use of social science in the courtroom, and proceeds to ...
Historically, trial courts have been cautious about allowing juries to hear testimony from scientifi...
A recent report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology questioned the vali...
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court replaced the general acce...
On its face, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals was about as easy a case as the Supreme Court ge...
This Article begins, in Part I, with a brief review of the past four decades of psychiatric and psy...
This essay addresses the issue of judges deciding what scientific evidence is admissible. The primar...
Despite the establishment of the Daubert standard in 1993, the evidentiary criteria are rarely used ...
In its landmark decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court announce...
The controversy over the proper standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence is an argument...
The goal of this paper is to outline the legal and scientific implications of the admissibility stan...
For almost three-quarters of a century, the venerable standard announced in Frye v. United States go...
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Supreme Court sensibly held that testimony purpo...
This article, written for a symposium on Guilt v. Guiltiness: Are the Right Rules for Trying Factua...
This article, part of a symposium on the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Logerquist v. McVey...
The piece briefly traces the history of the use of social science in the courtroom, and proceeds to ...
Historically, trial courts have been cautious about allowing juries to hear testimony from scientifi...
A recent report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology questioned the vali...
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court replaced the general acce...
On its face, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals was about as easy a case as the Supreme Court ge...
This Article begins, in Part I, with a brief review of the past four decades of psychiatric and psy...
This essay addresses the issue of judges deciding what scientific evidence is admissible. The primar...
Despite the establishment of the Daubert standard in 1993, the evidentiary criteria are rarely used ...
In its landmark decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court announce...
The controversy over the proper standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence is an argument...
The goal of this paper is to outline the legal and scientific implications of the admissibility stan...
For almost three-quarters of a century, the venerable standard announced in Frye v. United States go...