Judicial decision making about expert testimony in the aftermath of Daubert and Kumho

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 57-66

  Groscup, Jennifer Leigh ^a  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Admissibility; Decision making; Expert; Judges; Testimony

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COURT; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; METHODOLOGY; RELIABILITY;

EID: 3242720385     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v04n02_03     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993). 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2795.
2. Dixon, L., & Gill, B. (2002). Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 8, 251-308.
3. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
4. 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 & Human Behavior, 25, 433-458.
5. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512 (1997).
6. Groscup, J., Garven, S., & Penrod, S. (2003). Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael and the reliability of expert testimony. Manuscript in preparation. (Available from J. Groscup, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 445 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019).
7. Groscup, J., Huss, M., Penrod, S., Studebaker, C., O'Neil, & Gill, J. (2003). The science? of psychology: The effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals on the admissibility of psychological expert testimony. Manuscript in preparation. (Available from J. Groscup, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 445 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019).
8. Groscup, J., Penrod, S., Studebaker, C., Huss, M., & O'Neil. (2002). The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 8, 339-372.
9. Groscup, J., Studebaker, C., Penrod, S., Huss, M., & O'Neil. (2003). Expert admis5sibility in civil cases: Judicial decision making about expert testimony in the Daubert age. Manuscript in preparation. (Available from J. Groscup, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 445 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019).
10. Kovera, M.B., & McAuliff, B.D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574-586.
11. Krafka, C., Dunn, M., Johnson, M., Cecil, J., & Miletich, D. (2002). Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 8, 309-332.
12. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).