Adversarialism defended: Daubert and the judge's role in evaluating expert evidence

Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2001, Pages

  Kim, Hyongsoon ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041329828     PISSN: 00101923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. One of the most significant Supreme Court decisions of the last half-century, United States v. Nixon, noted that in the context of criminal justice the United States "ha[s] elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the parties contest all issues before a court of law." 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974) (emphasis added); see also Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 36 (1965). "The Constitution recognizes an adversary system as the proper method of determining guilt . . . ." Id.
2. One of the most significant Supreme Court decisions of the last half-century, United States v. Nixon, noted that in the context of criminal justice the United States "ha[s] elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the parties contest all issues before a court of law." 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974) (emphasis added); see also Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 36 (1965). "The Constitution recognizes an adversary system as the proper method of determining guilt . . . ." Id.
3. Examples abound of this reliance on the parties. Discovery rules are perhaps the best examples of this reliance. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (describing the general rules governing discovery in federal court). These rules require a party to recover information from the other party which it may need during the course of a trial, and demonstrate the passivity of the court in the information-gathering process. Other examples include the reliance upon direct examination by lawyers to bring out each party's version of the facts and the reliance upon a party to object to the introduction of evidence that should not be admitted at trial.