Daubert’s wager

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 73-82

  Shuman, Daniel W ^a   Sales, Bruce D ^b  

^a SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Admissibility; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals; Expert witness; Experttestimony; Inc; Psychologicaltestimony

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE; COURT; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGIST; SOCIAL ASPECT; STANDARDIZATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85024017841     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: 15229092     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v01n03_04     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Blanck, P. D., and Berven, H. M., 1999. evidence of Disability after Daubert. psychol-ogy, Public policy, and Law, 5:16–40.
2. Cantrell v. GAF Corp. 999 F.2d 1007 (6th Cir. 1993)
3. Committee on Ethical Guide lines for Forensic Psychologists. 1991. Specialty guide lines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human behavior, 15:655–665.
4. Dawes, R. M., and David, P., 1997. House of cards:Psychology and psycho Therapy built on myth, NY:Free Press.
5. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 1993. 509 U.S. 579
6. Faigman, D. L., and Wright, A. J., 1997. The Battered Woman Syndrome in the age of Science. Arizona Law review, 37:67–115.
7. Final Conclusions of the American psychological Association Working Group on Investigation of Memories of Child hood Abuse. 1998. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4:931–940.
8. Frolik, L. A., 1999. Science, common sense, and the determination of Mental ca-pacity. Psychology, Public policy, and Law, 5:41–58.
9. General Electric Co. v. Joiner. 1997. 522, U.S. 136
10. Grove, W. M., and Meehl, P. E., 1996. Comparative efficiency of informal (subjec-tive, impression is tic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction proce-dures:The Clinical-Statistical controversy. Psychology, Public policy, and Law, 2:293–323.
11. Krauss, D. A., and Sales, B. D., 1999. The problem of helpfulness in applying Daubert to experttestimony:Child Custody determinations in Family law as an ex em plar. Psychology, Public policy, and Law, 5:78–99.
12. Lipton, J. P., 1999. The use and acceptance of Social Science evidence in business litigation after. Daubert. Psychology, Public policy, and Law, 5:59–77.
13. Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., v. Carmichael. 1999. 526, U.S. 137
14. Moore v. Ashland Chem. Inc. 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998)
15. Shuman, D. W., and Sales, B. D., 1998. The admissibility of experttestimony based on Clinical judgment and Scientific Research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4:1226–1252.
16. Slobogin, C., 1999. The admissibility of behavioral Science information in criminal trials:From primitivism toDaubert to voice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5:100–119.
17. Ziskin, J., and Faust, D., 1995. Coping with Psychiatric and psychological Testimony, Los An geles:Law & Psychology Press.