Judges’ <span class='italic'>Daubert</span> Decisions

doi:10.1017/9781009119375.010

10 - Judges’ Daubert Decisions

from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024

Chelsea Jackson and

Edited by

Matthew T. Huss and

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

Book contents

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

Daubert expert testimony expert evidence expert witnesses admissibility Federal Rules of Evidence Frye Kumho

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 144 - 158

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009119375.010 [Opens in a new window]

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

Book contents

10 - Judges’ Daubert Decisions

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive