Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- 5 Victim Decision-Making
- 6 Bystanders’ Crime Reporting Decisions
- 7 Pretrial Publicity’s Effects on Jurors’ and Judges’ Decisions
- 8 Police Decisions Involved in Collecting Eyewitness Identification Evidence
- 9 Decisions Related to Miranda Rights
- 10 Judges’ Daubert Decisions
- 11 The Psychology of Confession Decision-Making During Police Interrogation
- 12 Plea Bargaining
- 13 Forensic Science Decision-Making
- 14 Decision-Making by Forensic Mental Health Evaluators
- 15 Interviewing Suspects in Criminal Investigations
- 16 Prosecutorial Decision-Making in Cases of Child Sexual Abuse
- 17 Decision-Making About Restoration of Defendants Who Are Incompetent to Stand Trial
- 18 Clinical Decision-Making Regarding Criminal Responsibility
- 19 Decision-Making Regarding Child Victims and Witnesses
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
10 - Judges’ Daubert Decisions
from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- 5 Victim Decision-Making
- 6 Bystanders’ Crime Reporting Decisions
- 7 Pretrial Publicity’s Effects on Jurors’ and Judges’ Decisions
- 8 Police Decisions Involved in Collecting Eyewitness Identification Evidence
- 9 Decisions Related to Miranda Rights
- 10 Judges’ Daubert Decisions
- 11 The Psychology of Confession Decision-Making During Police Interrogation
- 12 Plea Bargaining
- 13 Forensic Science Decision-Making
- 14 Decision-Making by Forensic Mental Health Evaluators
- 15 Interviewing Suspects in Criminal Investigations
- 16 Prosecutorial Decision-Making in Cases of Child Sexual Abuse
- 17 Decision-Making About Restoration of Defendants Who Are Incompetent to Stand Trial
- 18 Clinical Decision-Making Regarding Criminal Responsibility
- 19 Decision-Making Regarding Child Victims and Witnesses
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
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
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 144 - 158Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
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., & 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