- Title
- Revisiting Daubert: Judicial Gatekeeping and Expert Ethics in Court
- Creator
- Young, Gerald; Goodman-Delahunty, Jane
- Relation
- Psychological Injury and Law Vol. 14, Issue 4, p. 304-315
- Publisher Link
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09428-8
- Publisher
- Springer
- Resource Type
- journal article
- Date
- 2021
- Description
- This article calls for pragmatic modifications to legal practices for the admissibility of scientific evidence, including forensic psychological science. We submit that Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) and the other two cases in the U.S. Supreme Court trilogy on expert evidence have largely failed to accomplish their gatekeeping goals to assure the reliability of scientific evidence admitted in court. Reliability refers to validity in psychological terms. Part of the problem with Daubert’s application in court is the gatekeeping function that it ascribes to judges. Most Daubert admissibility challenges are rejected by judges, who might lack the requisite scientific expertise to make informed decisions; educating judges on science might not be an adequate solution. Like others who have put forth the idea, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 706, we suggest that court-appointed impartial experts can help judges to adjudicate competing claims on admissibility. We further recommend that an expert witness ethics code sworn to in legal proceedings should be mandatory in all jurisdictions. The journal Psychological Injury and Law calls for comments and further recommendations on modifying Daubert admissibility challenges and procedures in civil and criminal cases to develop best practices to mitigate adversarial allegiance and other unconscious biases in expert decision-making.
- Subject
- admissibility; Daubert; expert witness; ethics; gatekeeping; reliability
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1433605
- Identifier
- uon:39299
- Identifier
- ISSN:1938-971X
- Language
- eng
- Reviewed
- Hits: 718
- Visitors: 716
- Downloads: 0