The goal of this paper is to outline the legal and scientific implications of the admissibility standard defined in Daubert v. Merrel Row Pharmeceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The evolution of scientific admissibility is discussed. In addition, the author looks at criticisms of Daubert from the legal and psychological literature. Empirical data is presented with respect to judges’ abilities to act as “gate keepers” and jurors’ sensitivity to expert testimony. The author concludes with a discussion of the limitations and implications of this research.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CLAREMONT/oai:scholarship.claremont.edu:cmc_theses-3019 |
| Date | 01 January 2018 |
| Creators | Bern, Zachary |
| Publisher | Scholarship @ Claremont |
| Source Sets | Claremont Colleges |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | CMC Senior Theses |
| Rights | © 2018 Zachary D. Bern, default |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds