Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the daubert decision

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 251-308

  Dixon, Lloyd ^a,b   Gill, Brian ^a  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b RAND Institute for Civil Justice   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044533791     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.8.3.251     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
2. Becker, E. R., & Orenstein, A. (1992). The federal rules of evidence after sixteen years: The "plain meaning" jurisprudence, the need for an advisory committee on the rules of evidence, and suggestions for selective revisions of the rules. George Washington Law Review, 60, 857-914.
3. Berger, M. A. (2000). The Supreme Court's trilogy on the admissibility of expert evidence. In Reference manual on scientific evidence (2nd ed., pp. 9-38). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
4. Cooter, R., Marks, S., & Mnookin, R. (1982). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: A testable model of strategic behavior. Journal of Legal Studies, 9, 225-251.
5. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
6. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
7. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433-458.
8. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
9. Giannelli, P. C. (1994). Daubert: Interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 15, 1999-2026.
10. Groscup, J. L., Penrod, S. D., Studebaker, C. A., Huss, M. T., & O'Neil, K. M. (in press). The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
11. Huber, P. (1993). Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
12. In re Joint Eastern and Southern Dist. Asbestos Litigation, 827 F. Supp. 1014, at 1030-1031 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
13. Johnson, M. T., Krafka, C., & Cecil, J. S. (2000). Expert testimony in federal civil trials: A preliminary analysis. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
14. Kakalik, J. S., Dunworth, T., Hill, L. A., McCaffrey, D., Oshiro, M., Pace, N. M., & Vaiana, M. E. (1996). Just, speedy, and inexpensive? An evaluation of judicial case management under the Civil Justice Reform Act (MR-800-ICJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
15. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
16. Sanders, J., Diamond, S. S., & Vidmar, N. (2002). Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 139-153.
17. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. (1997). Federal rules of evidence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
18. Winter, G. (2001, January 30). Jury awards sour as lawsuits decline on defective goods. New York Times, p. A1.
19. Zeger, S., & Liang, K. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics, 42, 121-130.