Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:51:48.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Judges’ Daubert Decisions

from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
David DeMatteo ,
Sarah Fishel ,
Chelsea Jackson  and
Alexandra Kudatzky
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

In the landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the admissibility standard for expert evidence. In jurisdictions that have adopted the Daubert standard, trial court judges must make difficult decisions regarding the admissibility of proffered expert evidence. Although all federal courts and nearly all state courts use the Daubert standard, we know little about how judges fulfill their gatekeeping role when making admissibility decisions. This chapter reviews the empirical and theoretical considerations regarding how judges in Daubert jurisdictions determine which proffered expert evidence should be admitted. After reviewing the standards governing the admissibility of expert testimony, which includes a discussion of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert, and related cases, the chapter provides a discussion of each Daubert criterion, including the available evidence relating to judges’ understanding of those criteria. It then discusses the heuristics and biases that affect judicial decision-making. The chapter concludes with a discussion of implications for practice and research.

Keywords

Daubertexpert testimonyexpert evidenceexpert witnessesadmissibilityFederal Rules of EvidenceFryeKumho
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 144 - 158
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beecher-Monas, E. (2003). Heuristics, biases, and the importance of gatekeeping. Michigan State Law Review, 4, 987–1022.Google Scholar
Bornmann, L. (2011), Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.Google Scholar
Caudill, D. S., & LaRue, L. H., (2003). Why judges applying the Daubert trilogy need to know about the social, institutional, and rhetorical – and not just the methodological – aspects of science. Boston College Law Review, 45(1), 1–53.Google Scholar
Dahir, V. B., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., et al. (2005). Judicial application of Daubert to psychological syndrome and profile evidence: A research note. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 62–82. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.62.Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993).Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
DeMatteo, D., Fishel, S., & Tansey, A. (2019). Expert evidence: The (unfulfilled) promise of Daubert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619894336.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. (2013). The Daubert revolution and the birth of modernity: Managing scientific evidence in the age of science. University of California at Davis Law Review, 46, 101–138.Google Scholar
Faigman, D., Cheng, E., Mnookin, J., et al. (2020). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 1). Thomas West.Google Scholar
Federal Rules of Evidence. (1975). www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/federal_rules_of_evidence_-_december_2020_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar
Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., et al. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012899030937.Google Scholar
Giannelli, P. C. (1980). The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Frye v. United States, a half-century later. Columbia Law Review, 80, 1197–1250.Google Scholar
Godlee, F., Gales, C. R., & Martyn, C. N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.237.Google Scholar
Groscup, J. L., Penrod, S. D., Studebaker, C. A., Huss, M. T., & O’Neil, K. M. (2002). The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(4), 339–372. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-8971.8.4.339.Google Scholar
Hagen, M. A. (1997). Whores of the court: The fraud of psychiatric testimony and the rape of American justice. HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Haug, M., & Baird, E. (2011). Finding the error in Daubert. Hastings Law Journal, 62, 737–756.Google Scholar
Jefferson, T, Alderson, P., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2784–2786. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2784.Google Scholar
Jurs, A. W. (2012). Questions from the bench and independent experts: A study of the practices of state court judges. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 74(1), 47–83. https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2012.191.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103(3), 582–591. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.582.Google Scholar
Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 574–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574.Google Scholar
Krauss, D. A., Cassar, D., & Strother, A. (2009). The admissibility of expert testimony in the United States, the Commonwealth, and elsewhere. In Krauss, D. A. & Lieberman, J. D. (Eds.), Psychological expertise in court: Psychology in the courtroom (Vol. II, pp. 1–24). Ashgate.Google Scholar
Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(2), 267–310. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-8971.7.2.267.Google Scholar
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 US 137 (1999).Google Scholar
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784.Google Scholar
Mabe, M. (2003). The growth and number of journals. Serials, 16(2), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1629/16191.Google Scholar
MacLean, C. L., & Dror, I. E. (2016). A primer on the psychology of cognitive bias. In Kesselheim, A. & Robertson, C. (Eds.), Blinding as a solution to bias (pp. 13–24). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Malone, D. M., & Zwier, P. (2014). Effective expert testimony (3rd ed.). National Institute for Trial Advocacy.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B., & Diamond, S. S. (2014). The hidden Daubert factor: How judges use error rates in assessing scientific evidence. Wisconsin Law Review, 2014(6), 1063–1133.Google Scholar
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., et al. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (4th ed.). Guilford.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2011). Reference manual on scientific evidence (3rd ed.). National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1529100619888860.Google Scholar
Raitz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors’ decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14(4), 385–395. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/BF01068163.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. Hafemeister, T. L., & Mossman, D. (2020). Law and the mental health system: Civil and criminal aspects (7th ed.). West Publishing.Google Scholar
State v. DeLeon, 319 P.3d 382 (Haw. 2014).Google Scholar
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (Neb. 2015).Google Scholar
Stern, L. H., & Horvitz, S. A. (2002). A test for “general acceptance” under Daubert. Journal of Forensic Economics, 15(3), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.5085/0898-5510-15.3.285.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.Google Scholar
Weiss, D., & LaPorte, G. (2018). Uncertainty ahead: A shift in how federal scientific experts can testify. National Institute of Justice Journal, January 17. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/uncertainty-ahead-shift-how-federal-scientific-experts-can-testify.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×