Medical and scientific organizations and scientific evidence in U.S. trials: Lessons from European legal theory

Academic Medicine

Volumn 74, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 231-235

  Deftos, Leonard J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EUROPE; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC MEDICINE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0033010170     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199903000-00010     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Arenella P. People v. Simpson: Perspectives on the implications for the criminal justice system. S. California Law Rev. 1996; 69:1233-9.
2. Allen RJ. Reform: the system: the Simpson affair, reform of the criminal justice process, and magic bullets. Univ Colorado Law Rev. 1996; 67:989-1003.
3. Zobell H. The jury on trial. American Heritage. 1995; July 1:42-9.
4. Bernstein DE. Junk science in the United States and the Commonwealth. Yale J International Law. 1996;21:123-98.
5. Deftos LJ. Daubert & Frye: compounding the controversy over the forensic use of DNA testing. Whittier Law Rev. 1994;15:955-79.
6. Moskowitz M. The O.J. inquisition: a United States encounter with continental criminal justices. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law. 1995; 28:1121-49.
7. Langbein JH. Legal institutions: the German advantage in civil procedure, Univ Chicago Law Rev. 1985;52:823-56.
8. Allen RJ, Kock S. Reicherberg K., Rosen DT. The German advantage: a plea for more details and fewer generalities in comparative scholarship. Northwestern Law Rev. 1988;82:705-62.
9. Langbein JH Trashing the German advantage. Nortwestern Law Rev. 1988; 82:763-81.
10. Allen RJ. Idealization and caricature in comparative scholarship. Northwestern Law Rev. 1998;82:785-93.
11. Fenn P, Speck C, O'Shea M. Scientific experts: more attention needed. Nature. 1995;378:754.
12. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1993;509 U.S. 579.
13. Annas GJ. Scientific evidence in the courtroom. The death of the Frye rule. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1018-21.
14. Meany JR. From Frye to Daubert: is a pattern unfolding? Jurimetrics. 1995; 35:191-211.
15. Hamilton HG. The movement from Frye to Daubert: where do the states stand? Jurimetrics. 1998;38-201-14.
16. Berger MA. The Federal Rules of Evidence. Hofstra Law Rev. 1984; 12:255-98.
17. General Electric Co v. Joiner. 1997; 118 S. Ct. 512.
18. Amicus Brief of the New England Journal of Medicine and Marcia Angell, MD. 1997; WL304759.
19. Holden CS (ed.). Supreme Court clarifies stance on junk science. Science. 1998;279:35.
20. Cecil, JS, Willging TE. Court-Appointed Experts. Federal Judicial Center Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1994:527-73.
21. Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. 1996;947 F. Supp. 1387.
22. Brinton LA, Brown SL. Breast implants and cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1341-7.
23. Angell M. Shattuck Lecture - evaluating the health risks of breast implants: the interplay of medicine science, the law, and public opinion. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1513-8.
24. Sanders J, Kaye DH. Expert advice on silicone implants. Jurimetrics. 1997; 37:113-28.
25. Information about this report is available from the Federal Judicial Center at . Accessed 12/2/98.
26. Morrow DJ. Dow and lawyers reach agreement on implant suits. The New York Times. 1998 Nov. 10;pp A1, A17.
27. DiLello EE. Fighting fire with firefighters: a proposal for expert judges at the trial level. Colm Law Rev. 1993;93:473-99.
28. Federal Judicial Centers' Manual for Complex Litigation. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1995.
29. Strong JW. Introduction. In: McCormick on Evidence. 4th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1992:71.
30. Johnston PJ. Court-appointed scientific expert witnesses. High Tech Law J. 1988;2:249-69.
31. Burd WG, Lozano MS. Experts: is the end near for their use? J Air Law Communications. 1993;59:77-101.
32. Phibs B. Unpaid expert witness (letter). N Engl J Med. 1997;333:1477.
33. Pinsky L. The use of scientific peer review and colloquia to assist judges in the admissibility gatekeeping mandated by Daubert. Houston Law Rev. 1997;34:545-78.
34. Deftos LJ. Genomic torts:the law of the future. USF Law Rev. 1997; 32:105-37.
35. Lollar C (ed). Beyond devils and angels: the national conference of lawyers and scientists. Science. 1998;254:1818.
36. Breyer S. The interdependence of science and the law. Science. 1998; 280:537-8.
37. Whitney L. Call for medical experts brings gratifying response. Action Report of the Medical Board of California. April 1995;53:1.
38. Schumacher AE. Status report. Expert Reviewer Program. Medical Board of California. January 1998;1:2.
39. Priver DM. Scrutinizing doctors on the witness stand. San Diego Union-Tribune. 1998 Feb. 2; Sect. B:9.
40. U.S. v. Scheffer. 1998;117 S. Ct. 1817.
41. Frye v. United States. 1923;293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.)
42. Evans v. Kelky. 1997;977 F. Supp. 1283.
43. Amgen v. Biogen. 1997;973 Supp. 39.
44. Allen R, Green M. Relief at the frying of Frye; reflections on Doubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Shepard's Expert and Sci Evidence Q. 1993;1:43-67.