CHANGES IN THE STANDARDS FOR ADMITTING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL CIVIL CASES SINCE THE DAUBERT DECISION

The authors used a sample of federal district court opinions between 1980 and 1999 to examine how judges, plaintiffs, and defendants responded to the Supreme Court's 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. decision. They found that after Daubert (a) judges were more likely to evaluate...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychology, public policy, and law public policy, and law, 2002-09, Vol.8 (3), p.251-308
Main Authors: Dixon, Lloyd, Gill, Brian
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Expert Testimony
Human
Judges
Legal Decisions
Legal Evidence
Trends
Witnesses
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The authors used a sample of federal district court opinions between 1980 and 1999 to examine how judges, plaintiffs, and defendants responded to the Supreme Court's 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. decision. They found that after Daubert (a) judges were more likely to evaluate the reliability of expert evidence, (b) the standards for admitting expert evidence tightened, and (c) the parties proposing and challenging evidence responded to the change in standards. The authors also examined how"general acceptance" of proposed evidence in the specific expert community enters the reliability assessment and which types of evidence were most affected by Daubert . Even though judges are more actively screening expert evidence, whether they are doing so in ways that produce better outcomes has not been determined.
ISSN:1076-8971
1939-1528
DOI:10.1037/1076-8971.8.3.251