Expert Evidence: The Rules and the Rationality the Law Applies (or Should Apply) to Psychological Expertise

Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts: Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 367-400

  Faigman, David L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84895307765     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/0470013397.ch16     Document Type: Chapter

References (21)

1. Berger, M.A. (1994). Novel forensic evidence: The need for court-appointed experts after Daubert. Shepard's Expert and Scientific Evidence Quarterly, 1, 487.
2. Chesebro, K.J. (1994). Taking Daubert's 'focus' seriously: The methodology/conclusion distinction. Cardozo Law Review, 15, 1745.
3. Cecil, J.S. and Wilging, T.E. (1994). Accepting Daubert's invitation: Defining a role for courtappointed experts in assessing scientific validity. Emory Law Journal, 43, 995.
4. Faigman, D.L., Kaye, D.H., Saks, M.J. and Sanders, J. (eds) (2002). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (2nd edn). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
5. Faigman, D.L. (2000). The law's scientific revolution: Reflections and ruminations on the law's use of experts in year seven of the revolution. Washington and Lee Law Review, 57, 661.
6. Faigman, D.L., Porter, E. and Saks, M.J. (1994). Check your crystal ball at the courthouse door, please: Exploring the past, understanding the present and worrying about the future of scientific evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 15, 1799.
7. Faigman, D.L. (1989). To have and have not: Assessing the value of social science to the law as science and policy. Emory Law Journal, 38, 1005.
8. Giannelli, P.C. (1994). Daubert: Interpreting the federal rules of evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 15, 1999.
9. Hamilton, H.G. (1998). Note, the movement from Frye to Daubert: Where do the states stand? Jurimetrics, 38, 201.
10. Horrobin, D. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation, Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1438.
11. Imwinkelried, E.J. (1991). The debate in the DNA cases over the foundation for the admission of scientific evidence: The importance of human error as a cause of forensic misanalysis. Washington University Law Quarterly, 69, 19.
12. McCord, D. (1989). Syndromes, profiles and other mental exotica: A new approach to the admissibility of nontraditional psychological evidence in criminal cases. Oregon Law Review, 66, 19.
13. Monahan, J. (2002). The scientific status of research on clinical and actuarial predictions of violence. In D.L. Faigman, D.H. Kaye, M.J. Saks and J. Sanders (eds), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (2nd edn). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
14. Popper,K. (1983). Realism and the aim of science. [From the Postscript to the Logic of scientific discovery.
15. Risinger, D.M. (2002). Taxonomy of expertise. In D.L. Faigman, D.H. Kaye, M.J. Saks and J. Sanders (eds), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (2nd edn). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
16. Saks, M.J. (2000). The aftermath of Daubert: An evolving jurisprudence of expert testimony. Jurimetrics, 40, 229-241.
17. Sanders, J. (1993). From science to evidence: The testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases. Stanford Law Review, 46, 1.
18. Slapper, A. and Kelly, D. (1999). The English legal system (4th edn). London: Cavendish.
19. Taslitz, A. (1995). Daubert's guide to the federal rules of evidence: A not-so-plain-meaning jurisprudence. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 32, 3.
20. Wells, G. (2002). The scientific status of research on eyewitness identification. InD.L. Faigman, D.H. Kaye, M.J. Saks and J. Sanders (eds), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (2nd edn). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
21. Woolf, Rt Hon. Lord (1996). Access to Justice: Final Report. London: HMSO.