Law, Court Rules, Proceedings Flashcards
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)
amily sued company saying that mother’s ingestion of meds caused birth defects; company had expert witness who cited lack of peer reviewed publications demonstrated link between meds and birth defects, petitioners brought 8 experts who presented studies that had not gained acceptance in scientific community
Does the “general acceptance” test control the admission of scientific expert testimony following the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence? No, Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 702) provides standard for admission of scientific expert testimony and not Frye’s “general acceptance” test
Judges should determine the reliability and relevance of the expert testimony by seeking a valid connection to the specific question. Cross-examination and additional testimony can be used to determine the veracity of the expert’s conclusion. Four reasons were provided to justify the decision. The first reason is that the original decision was formulated over 70 years ago with an absence of any citation. The second reason is to broaden the scope of what could be considered admissible expert testimony in order to allow recent scientific discoveries that are not yet known or generally accepted. The third reason is to give a more concrete definition of allowable evidence (i.e., empirical testability, study subject to peer review, whether the potential rate of error is acceptable, acceptability in the scientific community). The Fourth reason is to allow the judge to act as a gatekeeper to guard the jury from considering speculation under the guise of science.
Frye v. US (1923)
Frye convicted of murder, appealed that expert was not permitted to testify results of deception test that was held inadmissible, said that “when the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of the witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence.”
Court said when a test (in this case the systolic blood pressure test) has not gained scientific recognition, expert testimony regarding the results of the test is inadmissible (so deception test was not able to be admitted)
General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997)
Joiner was electrician and exposed to coolant fluid with hazardous chemicals and dx with lung cancer so sued company, he was also a smoker and had family history of lung cancer but said fluid “promoted” the cancer and he would not have gotten cancer for years without it; company had expert witness saying no evidence he was exposed to chemicals and no linkage, he had counter expert testify but was not admitted (his did not meet “subjective belief or unsupported speculation”)
Court allowed court’s discretion, and said courts should use an abuse of discretion, judges are gatekeepers to ensure scientific evidence is sound;
Jenkins v. US (1961)
client initially incompetent but restored (receiving various dxes during restoration), plead NGRI and had 3 psychologists testify, all said schizophrenia 1 said no sanity opinion & 2 said connection between MH and offense, judge instructed jury to disregard psychologists opinions because they said could not testify to mental disease or defect and this was appealed; court said psychologists can testify as experts as to question of mental disease and defect, although being a psychologist is not enough it depends on “nature and extent of his knowledge”
Kunho Tire Co v Carmichael (1999)
Sued tire company after car accident; plaintiffs wanted to have expert on tire failure analysis who was going to opine defective manufacturing, ruled he did not satisfy Daubert standard so not allowed and they appealed
Court said Daubert factors may apply to the testimony of experts who are not scientists (i.e. engineers), the Daubert standard is a flexible one, and not a definitive checklist because those factors may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability – granting the district court judge broad discretion.
Allowed court to deny admissibility because it doubted the methodology and questioned the reliability, not because of Carlson’s qualifications (i.e. not a scientist).
