Daubert and the exclusionary ethos: The convergence of corporate and judicial attitudes towards the admissibility of expert evidence in tort litigation

Law and Policy

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 231-257

  Edmond, Gary ^a   Mercer, David ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17044425820     PISSN: 02658240     EISSN: 14679930     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0265-8240.2004.00011.x     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Abel, Richard L. (1987) “The Real Tort Crisis—Too Few Claims,” Ohio State Law Journal 48: 443-67.
2. Atlantic Legal Foundation (ALF) (2002) Annual Report. New York: Atlantic Legal Foundation.
3. Atlantic Legal Foundation (ALF) (1999) Science in the Courtroom Review 1 (Summer): 1.
4. Berger, Margaret A. (2001) “Upsetting the Balance Between Adverse Interests: The Impact of the Supreme Court's Trilogy on Expert Testimony in Toxic Tort Litigation,” Law & Contemporary Problems 64: 289-326.
5. Berger, MargaretA. (1997) “Eliminating General Causation: Notes Toward a New Theory of Justice and Toxic Torts,” Columbia Law Review 97: 2117-52.
6. Bernstein, David (2001) Frye, Frye, Again: The Past Present, and Future of the General Acceptance Test. Law and Economics Research Paper Series, Paper No. 01-07. Arlington, Va.: George Mason University School of Law. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=262034.
7. Bernstein, David (1996) “Junk Science in the United States and the Commonwealth,” Yale Journal of International Law 21: 123-82.
8. Bogus, Carl T. (2001) Why Lawsuits are Good for America. New York: New York Univ. Press.
9. Calabresi, Guido (1970) The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press.
10. Chalmers, Alan (1976) What is this Thing called Science. St Lucia: Univ. of Queensland Press.
11. Cole, Simon (2001) Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
12. Collins, Harry (1985) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
13. Cranor, Carl F., and David Eastmond (2001) “Scientific Ignorance and Reliable Patterns of Evidence in Toxic Tort Causation: Is There a Need for Liability Reform?” Law & Contemporary Problems 64: 5-48.
14. Depew, C. Michelle (1994) “Challenging the Fields: The Case for Electromagnetic Field Tort Remedies Against Utilities,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 56: 441-82.
15. Dixon, Lloyd, and Brian Gill (2001) Changes in the Standard for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Institute for Civil Justice. Available at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1439/. (Reproduced in (2002) Psychology, Public Policy & Law 8: 251-308.)
16. Edmond, Gary (2002a) “Legal Engineering: Contested Representations of Law, Science (and Non-science) and Society,” Social Studies of Science 32: 371-412.
17. Edmond, Gary (2002b) “Whigs in Court: Historiographical Problems with Expert Evidence,” Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 14: 123-75.
18. Edmond, Gary, and David Mercer (2004) “The Invisible Branch: In Search of the Legal Accommodation of Science Studies.” In Expertise in Regulation and Law, edited by G. Edmond. Aldershot: Ashgate (forthcoming).
19. Edmond, Gary, and David Mercer (2002) “Conjectures and Exhumations: Citations of History and Philosophy and Sociology of Science in US Federal Courts,” Law and Literature 14: 309-66.
20. Edmond, Gary, and David Mercer (2000) “Litigation Life: Law Science Knowledge Construction in (Bendectin) Mass Toxic Tort Litigation,” Social Studies of Science 30: 265-316.
21. Edmond, Gary, and David Mercer (1999) “Juggling Science: From Polemic to Pastiche,” Social Epistemology 13: 215-34.
22. Edmond, Gary, and David Mercer (1998) “Trashing ‘Junk’ Science,” Stanford Technology Law Review 3. Available at http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Core_Page/index.html.
23. Feeley, Malcolm, and Edward Rubin (1998) Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
24. Finley, Lucinda M. (1999) “Guarding the Gate to the Courthouse: How Trial Judges are Using Their Evidentiary Screening Role to Remake Tort Causation Rules,” DePaul Law Review 49: 335-76.
25. Foster, Kenneth, and Peter Huber (1997) Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
26. Fuller, Steve (2003) Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science. Cambridge: Icon Books.
27. Galanter, Marc (2002) “The Turn Against Law: The Recoil Against Expanding Accountability,” Texas Law Review 81: 285-304.
28. Galanter, Marc (1998) “An Oil Strike in Hell: Contemporary Legends About the Civil Justice System,” Arizona Law Review 40: 717-52.
29. Galanter, Marc (1983) “Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know (and Think We Know) about our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society,” UCLA Law Review 31: 4-71.
30. Gerjuoy, Edward (1994) “Electromagnetic fields: Physics, Biology and Law,” Jurimetrics Journal 35: 55-75.
31. Giannelli, PaulC. (1994) “Daubert: Interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence,” Cardozo Law Review 15: 1999-2026.
32. Giannelli, Paul C. (1993) “‘Junk Science’: The Criminal Cases,” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 84: 105-28.
33. Giannelli, PaulC. (1980) “The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later,” Columbia Law Review 80: 1197-50.
34. Gieryn, Thomas (1998) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
35. Gottesman, Michael H. (1998) “From Barefoot to Daubert to Joiner: Triple Play or Double Error?” Arizona Law Review 40: 753-80.
36. Graham, MichaelH. (2000) “The Expert Witness Predicament: ‘Reliable’ Under the Gatekeeping Test of Daubert, Kumho, and Proposed Amended Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,” University of Miami Law Review 54: 317-57.
37. Graham-Rowe, Duncan (2003) “Special Report: Mobile Phone Safety,” New Scientist 179: 12-13.
38. Green, Michael D. (1996) Bendectin and Birth Defects: The Challenges of Mass Toxic Substances Litigation. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
39. Grasso, Laura (1998) “Cellular Telephones and the Potential hazards of RF Radiation: Responses to the Fear and Controversy,” Virginia Journal of Law and Technology 3. Available at http://vjolt.student.virginia.edu.
40. Haack, Susan (2001) “An Epistemologist in the Bramble-Bush: At the Supreme Court with Mr Joiner,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law 26: 217-48.
41. Haack, Susan (1993) Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.
42. Huber, Peter (1991) Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
43. Jasanoff, Sheila (2002) “Science and the Statistical Victim,” Social Studies of Science 32: 37-69.
44. Jasanoff, Sheila (1996) “Research Subpoenas and the Sociology of Knowledge,” Law & Contemporary Problems 59: 95-118.
45. Jasanoff, Sheila (1995) Science at the Bar. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
46. Kassirer, Jerome P., and Joe S. Cecil (2002) “Inconsistency in Evidentiary Standards for Medical Testimony: Disorder in the Courts,” Journal of the American Medical Association 288: 1382-7.
47. Kendall, Doug (2000) Nothing for Free: How Private Judicial Seminars Are Undermining Environmental Protections and Breaking the Public's Trust. Washington, D.C.: Community Rights Counsel. Available at http://www.communityrights.org.
48. Krafka, Carol, Meghan A. Dunn, Molly Treadway Johnson, Joe S. Cecil, and Dean Miletich (2002) Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Centre. Available at http://www.fjc.gov/. (Reproduced in (2002) Psychology, Public Policy and Law 8: 309-32.)
49. Kroll-Smith, Steve, and Pamela Jenkins (1996) “Old Stories, New Audiences: Sociological Knowledge in Courts.” In Witnessing for Sociology: Sociologists in Court, edited by S. Kroll-Smith & P. Jenkins. Westport: Praegar.
50. Lynch, Michael (1998) “The Discursive Production of Uncertainty: The OJ Simpson ‘Dream Team’ and the Sociology of Knowledge Machine,” Social Studies of Science 28: 829-68.
51. Mercer, David (2002) “Scientific Method Discourses in the Construction of EMF Science,” Social Studies of Science 32: 205-33.
52. Miller, CarolynR. (2003) “Novelty and Heresy in the Debate on Nonthermal Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.” In Rhetoric and Incommensurability. Waterloo, Ontario: Dept. of English, University of Waterloo. Available at http://www.incommensurability.com.
53. Miltenberg, Ned (2001) “Out of the fire and into the Fryeing pan or Back to the Future,” Trial 37: 18. Available at http://expertpages.com/news/out_of_the_fire_into_Fryeing.htm.
54. Molot, Jonathan T. (1998) “How Changes in the Legal Profession Reflect Changes in Civil Procedure,” Virginia Law Review 84: 955-1051.
55. Mone, Larry (2002) “Philanthropy Roundtable Forum; How Think Tanks Achieve Public Policy Breakthrough.” 29 May, New York City. Available at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/lm_pr_address.htm.
56. Mulkay, Michael, and Nigel Gilbert (1981) “Putting Philosophy to Work: Karl Popper's Influence on Scientific Practice,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 389-407.
57. Nordberg, Peter (2003) “Daubert on the Web.” Available at http://www.daubertontheweb.com/leader_board.htm.
58. Neutra, Raymond, R. DelPizzo Vincent, and Geraldine M. Lee (2002) An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations, and Appliances. Final Report California EMF Program. Oakland, Calif.: California Public Utilities Commission & California Dept. of Health Services.
59. Oldroyd, David (1986) The Arch of Knowledge. Kensington: Univ. of New South Wales Press.
60. Olson, Walter K. (2003) The Rule of Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America's Rule of Law. New York: St Martin's Press.
61. Olson, Walter K. (1991) The Litigation Explosion: What Happened When America Unleashed the Lawsuit. New York: Dutton.
62. Park, Robert (2000) Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
63. Parker, Gretchen (2002) “Ruling Threatens Cell Phone Suits,” Associated Press 1 October. Available at http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/high_tech/1700/10-1-2002/20021001054501_20.html.
64. Quinn, Philip (1984) “The Philosopher of Science as Expert Witness.” In Science and reality, edited by J. T. Cushing. Notre Dame Ind.: Univ. of Notre Dame Press.
65. Saks, Michael (1992) “Do We Really Know Anything About the Behavior of the Tort Litigation System—and Why Not?” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 140: 1147-91.
66. Sanders, Joseph (1998) Bendectin on Trial: A Study of Mass Tort Litigation. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
67. Sanders, Joseph (1992) “The Bendectin Litigation: A Case Study in Life Cycles of Mass Torts,” Hastings Law Journal 43: 301-418.
68. Schuck, Peter (1986) Agent Orange on trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
69. Schwartz, Gary T. (1992) “The Beginning and the Possible End of the Rise of Modern American Tort Law,” Georgia Law Review 26: 601-702.
70. Schwartz, Teresa M. (1991) “Product Liability Reform by the Judiciary,” Gonzaga Law Review 27: 303-34.
71. Slesin, Louis (2002) “Special Report: Daubert Hearing on Mobile Phones and Brian Cancer,” Microwave News 22: 7-9.
72. Slesin, Louis (1995) “Atlantic Legal Foundation: New Player on the EMF Scene,” Microwave News 15: 3.
73. Solomon, Norman (1998) The Manhattan Institute: Launch Pad for Conservative Authors. IPA Articles. Available at http://www.accuracy.org/articles/manhat.htm.
74. Stewart, W. (2000) Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) Mobile Phones and Health. Chilton: National Radiological Protection Board, UK.
75. Swicord, Mays (2003) “Interview: It's Good to Talk,” New Scientist 179: 46-8.
76. Swift, Eleanor (2000) “One Hundred Years of Evidence Law Reform: Thayer's Triumph,” California Law Review 88: 2437-576.
77. Walsh, William J., Richard Wilson, and Martin S. Kauffman (1997) Electric and Magnetic fields: Policy Science and Litigation. Briefly: Perspectives on Legislation, Regulation, and Litigation No. 8. Washington, D.C.: National Center for the Public Interest.
78. Wilson, Richard (2003) “Science and the Law: Sound Science in the Courtroom.” Available at http://phys4.harvard.edu/%7Wilson/soundscience/ALF_Science.html#EMF.
79. Wynne, Brian (1989) “Establishing the Rules of Laws: Constructing Expert Authority.” In Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law, edited by R. Smith & B. Wynne. London: Routledge.
80. Yeazell, Stephen C. (1994) “The Misunderstood Consequences of Modern Civil Procedure,” Wisconsin Law Review: 631-78.