Untitled spreadsheet - Sheet1 (1) Flashcards
2 outcomes of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993):
- Supreme Court directed federal judges to examine method or reasoning underlying the admission of expert evidence (Admit only evidence that was reliable and relevant)
- Judges to act as “gatekeepers” (Couldn’t defer to appropriate expert community/ Couldn’t leave it to the jury to decide)
2 reasons that the relevance standard has been criticized:
- Observers criticize “junk science” that is admitted without a solid basis
- Jury had the responsibility of assessing its scientific reliability
Describe trends in trials after the Daubert decision
- Reliability more carefully assessed by judges
- All five Daubert factors more frequently addressed in judges’ discussion of reliability
- Judges also more rigorous about assessing relevance and expert qualifications
List 2 reasons that there was not an increased level of admissibility of novel science after Daubert:
- Lack of general acceptance as much a barrier as was before
- General acceptance was no longer sufficient for evidence to be found reliable (May now be generally accepted, but found unreliable)
List a reason that the General acceptance standard has been criticized:
-Excluded novel expert evidence that was actually quite reliable
List the 2 standards that Judges have historically relied on to determine whether to admit expert evidence into trial:
- Is evidence relevant to case
- Is evidence generally accepted in expert community
State two findings from RAND Corporation’s May 2005 comprehensive study of asbestos litigation.
- Number of claims led annually increased sharply beginning in mid-to-late 1990s
- Nonmalignant injuries account for most of growth
- Some evidence suggest most nonmalignant claimants are currently unimpaired
- Concerns regarding depletion of funds available to pay future claimants and burdens placed on courts
State two notable changes since 2002 not included in the RAND report.
- More efforts to direct scarce resources to the sickest claimants
- Includes changes to the Manville Trust Distribution Process (TDP) and state reforms imposing medical criteria to make a claim
- Decrease in claim filings during 2004-2005 for less severe medical conditions
- Continued federal and state reform efforts
- Heightened scrutiny of potentially fraudulent claims
What factors do judges use when determining reliability (from Daubert):
- Whether it can be (and has been) tested
- Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication
- Its known or potential rate of error
- The existence and maintenance of standards controlling the particular technique’s operation
- Whether it is generally accepted in the scientific community
Why did experts initially expect increased admissibility of novel science that wasn’t widely accepted after Daubert:
Because Daubert de-emphasized importance of testimony’s general acceptance
