Add to ORKGThis Comment examines the history of scientific and non-scientific expert evidence, its current status, and the future of scientific and non-scientific evidence based on recent court decisions. Part II explores the background of these issues by examining the earlier standard for admitting expert testimony, the effect of Congress’ promulgation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the influential cases in this area. Part III analyzes the importance of subjecting nonscientific expert testimony to the same rigors as scientific expert testimony. Lastly, Part IV predicts the future of expert evidence
Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court decided one of the most important cases concerning the use ...
In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard agains...
This article considers the role of the trial court in responding to the changes wrought by scientifi...
The typical requisites for receiving testimony from an expert witness are that the expert be qualifi...
For almost three-quarters of a century, the venerable standard announced in Frye v. United States go...
Although the Supreme Court elaborated a standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in Dauber...
The Supreme Court’s trilogy of evidence cases, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire appear to mark a sign...
The problem with expert evidence is not the inappropriateness of the Daubert approach. The narrow fo...
The Supreme Court\u27s decision in Daubert clarified the standards for the admissibility of expert e...
Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determine...
Read court decisions and commentaries from 100, or evenfive years ago, and you will find that expert...
A recent report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology questioned the vali...
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 speaks in very general terms. It governs every situation in which scie...
The Frye and Daubert rulings give us two very different ways to intend the relation between law and ...
It does not take long for even a casual observer of criminal and civil trials to make two observatio...
Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court decided one of the most important cases concerning the use ...
In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard agains...
This article considers the role of the trial court in responding to the changes wrought by scientifi...
The typical requisites for receiving testimony from an expert witness are that the expert be qualifi...
For almost three-quarters of a century, the venerable standard announced in Frye v. United States go...
Although the Supreme Court elaborated a standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in Dauber...
The Supreme Court’s trilogy of evidence cases, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire appear to mark a sign...
The problem with expert evidence is not the inappropriateness of the Daubert approach. The narrow fo...
The Supreme Court\u27s decision in Daubert clarified the standards for the admissibility of expert e...
Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determine...
Read court decisions and commentaries from 100, or evenfive years ago, and you will find that expert...
A recent report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology questioned the vali...
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 speaks in very general terms. It governs every situation in which scie...
The Frye and Daubert rulings give us two very different ways to intend the relation between law and ...
It does not take long for even a casual observer of criminal and civil trials to make two observatio...
Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court decided one of the most important cases concerning the use ...
In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard agains...
This article considers the role of the trial court in responding to the changes wrought by scientifi...