Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 433-458

  Gatowski, Sophia I ^a   Dobbin, Shirley A ^a   Richardson, James T ^a   Ginsburg, Gerald P ^a   Merlino, Mara L ^a   Dahir, Veronica ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; PHILOSOPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENCE; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; WORK;

ATTITUDE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MAKING; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; EXPERT TESTIMONY; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; JOB DESCRIPTION; JURISPRUDENCE; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PHILOSOPHY, MEDICAL; PROFESSIONAL ROLE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0035488194     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1012899030937     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Agrimonti, L. M. (1995). The limitations of Daubert and its misapplication to quasi-scientific experts. Washburn Law Journal, 35, 134-156.
2. Beecher-Monas, E. (1999). A ray of light for judges blinded by science: Triers of science and intellectual due process. Georgia Law Review, 33, 1047-1111.
3. Berger, M. (1994). Procedural paradigms for applying the Daubert test. Minnesota Law Review, 78, 1345-1386.
4. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
5. de Vyver, K. I. (1999). Comment: Opening the door but keeping the lights off: Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael and the applicability of the Daubert test to non-scientific evidence. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 50, 177-202.
6. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.
7. Dillman, D. A. (1999). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.
8. Dillman, D. A., & Tarnai, J. (1988). Administrative issues in mixed mode surveys. In R. M. Groves et al. (Eds.), Telephone survey methodology (pp. 509-528). New York: Wiley.
9. Dobbin, S. A., & Gatowski, S. I. (1999). A judge's deskbook on the basic philosophies and methods of science [On-line]. The State Justice Institute. Available: www.unr.edu/bench
10. Dobbin, S. A., Gatowski, S. I., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., Dahir, V., & Richardson, J. T. (2001). Surveying difficult populations: Lessons learned from a national survey of state trial court judges. Forthcoming, Justice System Journal, 22(3).
11. Dwyer, D. (1994). Federal rules of evidence supercede general acceptance standard for admissibility of scientific evidence. Suffolk University Law Review, 28, 252-260.
12. Faigman, D. L. (1995). The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1, 960-979.
13. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (Eds.). (1997). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vols. 1-2). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
14. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (Eds.). (1999). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 3). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
15. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (2000). Reply essay: How good is good enough?: Expert evidence under Daubert and Kumho. Case Western Reserve University Law Review, 50, 645-647.
16. Faigman, D. L., & Wright, A. J. (1997). The battered woman syndrome in the age of science. Arizona Law Review, 39, 67-115.
17. Federal Judicial Center. (1994). Reference manual on scientific evidence. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
18. Federal Judicial Center. (2000). Reference manual on scientific evidence (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
19. Fenner, G. M. (1996). The Daubert handbook: The case, its essential dilemma, and its progeny. Creighton Law Review, 29, 939-1089.
20. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
21. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Johnson, M. T., Cecil, J. S., Dahir, V., Merlino, M. L., Richardson, J. T., & Ginsburg, G. P (2000). The experience of state trial court judges with respect to expert testimony: Problems encountered and solutions employed. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Association (Div. 41, American Psychological Association), New Orleans, LA.
22. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., & Ginsburg, G. P. (1997). The globalization of behavioral science evidence about battered women: A theory of production and diffusion. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 285-305.
23. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
24. Goodman-Delahunty, R. (1997). Forensic psychological expertise in the wake of Daubert. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 121-140.
25. Gottesman, M. H. (1994). Admissibility of expert testimony after Daubert: The prestige factor. Emory Law Journal, 43, 867-884.
26. Groscup, J. L., Studebaker, C. A., Huss, M. T., O'Neil, K. M., & Penrod, S. D. (2000). A 'scientific' analysis of the admissibility of expert testimony: Investigating the effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Association (Div. 41, American Psychological Association), New Orleans, LA.
27. Grove, W. M., & Barden, R. C. (1999). Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The admissibility of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 224-242.
28. Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies Inc., No. 91 C 7167, 1993 WL 311916 (ND. Ill. Aug. 11, 1993).
29. Iacobelli Construction, Inc., v. County of Monroe, 32 F. 3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994).
30. In re Aluminum Phosphide Antitrust Litigation, 893 F. Supp. 1497 (D. Kan. 1995).
31. Isely v. Capuchin Province, 877 F. Supp. 1055 (E.D. Mich. 1995).
32. Jasanoff, S. (1993). What judges should know about the sociology of science. Judicature, 77(2), 77-82.
33. Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (1999). The problem of "helpfulness" in applying Daubert to expert testimony: Child custody determinations in family law as an exemplar. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 78-99.
34. Kumho Tire Co. v. Patrick Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999).
35. Laser, J. (1997). Note: Inconsistent gatekeeping in federal courts: Application of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to nonscientific expert testimony. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 30, 1379-1420.
36. Lavrakas, P. J. (1993). Telephone survey methods: Sampling, selection, and supervision. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37. Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., 126 F.3d 679 (5th Cir. 1997).
38. Needham, K. L. (1998). Note: Questioning the admissibility of nonscientific evidence after Daubert: The need for increased judicial gatekeeping to ensure the reliability of all expert testimony. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 25, 541-574.
39. Odgers, S., & Richardson, J. T. (1995). Keeping bad science out of the courtroom: Changes in Australian and American expert evidence law. University of New South Wales Law Review, 18, 108-129.
40. Parry, J. W. (1998). National benchbook on psychiatric and psychological evidence and testimony. ABA Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law and The State Justice Institute.
41. Penrod, S., Fulero, S., & Cutler, B. (1995). Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: The state of law and science. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 229-259.
42. Petruzzi's IGA Supermarkets, Inc., v. Darling-Delaware Co., 998 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir 1993).
43. Renaker, T. S. (1996). Evidentiary legerdemain: Deciding when Daubert should apply to social science evidence. California Law Review, 84, 1657-1692.
44. Richardson, J. T. (1994). Dramatic changes in American expert evidence law: From Frye to Daubert, with special attention to implications for social and behavioural science evidence. Judicial Review, 2, 13-37.
45. Richardson, J. T., Dobbin, S. A., Gatowski, S. I., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (1998). Judges' experience with, and perception of, Daubert, scientific evidence, and the question of admissibility: A national study. Paper presented at the meeting of the Law & Society Association, Aspen, CO.
46. Richardson, J. T., Dobbin, S. A., Gatowski, S. I., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., Dahir, V., & Colton, C. (1998). A case law survey of social and behavioral science evidence after Daubert. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Association (Div. 41, American Psychological Association), Redondo Beach, CA.
47. Richardson, J. T., Gatowski, S. I., & Dobbin, S. A. (1995). The production of expert scientific evidence: Daubert, partisanship, and symbolic justice. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Social Justice Research, Reno, NV.
48. Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Gatowski, S. I., & Dobbin, S. A. (1995). The problem of applying Daubert to psychological syndrome evidence. Judicature, 79, 10-17.
49. Risinger, D. M., & Saks, M. J. (1996). Science and non-science in the courts: Daubert meets handwriting identification expertise. Iowa Law Review, 82, 21-74.
50. Saks, M.J. (2000). The aftermath of Daubert: An evolving jurisprudence of expert evidence. Jurimetrics, 40, 229-241.
51. Saxe, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post-Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 203-223.
52. Schwartz, A. (1997). A 'dogma of empiricism' revisited: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the need to resurrect the philosophical insight of Frye v. United States. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 10, 151-237.
53. Schwartz, A. (2000). The Daubert myth of the super-expert judge. Paper presented at the meeting of the Law and Society Association, Miami, FL.
54. Showalter, C. R. (1995). Distinguishing science from pseudo-science in psychiatry: Expert testimony in the post-Daubert era. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law, 2, 211-245.
55. Shuman, D. W., & Sales, B. D. (1999). The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 3-15.
56. Siegelman, P., & Donohue, J. J. (1990). Studying the iceberg from its tip: A comparison of published and unpublished employment discrimination cases. Law and Society Review, 24(5), 1133-1170.
57. Slobogin, C. (1998). Psychiatric evidence in criminal trials: To junk or not to junk? William and Mary Law Review, 40, 1-55.
58. Slobogin, C. (1999). The admissibility of behavioral science information in criminal trials: From primitivism to Daubert to voice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 100-119.
59. Songer, D. R. (1988). Nonpublication in the United States District Courts: Official criteria versus inferences from appellate review. Journal of Politics, 50, 206-215.
60. The American Bench (1997/1998). Sacramento, CA: Forester-Long, Inc. United States v. Starzecpyzel, 880 F. Supp. 1027 (S.D. N.Y. 1995).
61. Watkins, H. (1994). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: General acceptance rejected. Santa Clara Computer and Technology Law Journal, 10, 259-265.