权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

A 'Scientific' Examination of the Admissibility of Scientific Expert Testimony Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

对 Daubert 诉 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 案中科学专家证词可采性的“科学”审查

基本信息

批准号：
9618580
负责人：
Steven Penrod
金额：
$ 8.27万
依托单位：
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
依托单位国家：
美国
项目类别：
Standard Grant
财政年份：
1997
资助国家：
美国
起止时间：
1997-09-01 至 2000-02-29
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=9618580&HistoricalAwards=false
关键词：
Scientific Examination Admissibility Expert Testimony

项目摘要

Abstract Penrod 9618580 On June 28, 1993 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. creating a new standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence and displacing the traditional Frye test. Since then, many legal commentators have debated the effects of the decision on trial court decisions concerning the admissibility of scientific testimony. This research addresses empirically the admissibility question. Specifically, the research will answer the following questions, among others: Has Daubert generally lead to greater exclusion or admission of scientific evidence in general? Are the courts applying Daubert to technical or specialized knowledge? Is social science evidence more or less likely to be admitted under Daubert? Is the review of scientific evidence more rigorous under Daubert? Is the focus of scientific scrutiny methodology or results? Do the State courts apply Daubert differently from Federal courts? To study these issues, cases decided before and cases decided after Daubert are selected using a Westlaw search. Data are coded on 58 variables assessing the criteria courts use to admit or not, expert evidence. Changes before and after Daubert are compared. The results of this research will inform legal scholars and social scientists as to the influence of this important Supreme Court decision on the use of science in the courtroom. %%% On June 28, 1993 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. creating a new standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence and displacing the traditional Frye test. Since then, many legal commentators have debated the effects of the decision on trial court decisions concerning the admissibility of scientific testimony. This research addresses empirically the admissibility question. Specifically, the research will answer the following questions, among others: Has Daubert generally lead to greater exclusion or admission of scientific evid ence in general? Are the courts applying Daubert to technical or specialized knowledge? Is social science evidence more or less likely to be admitted under Daubert? Is the review of scientific evidence more rigorous under Daubert? Is the focus of scientific scrutiny methodology or results? Do the State courts apply Daubert differently from Federal courts? To study these issues, cases are selected using a Westlaw search. Data are coded on 58 variables assessing the criteria courts use to admit or not, expert evidence. The results of this research will inform legal scholars ***

摘要 Penrod 9618580 1993年6月28日，最高法院对Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals，Inc.一案作出裁决。为科学证据的可接受性创造了一个新的标准，并取代了传统的Frye测试。从那时起，许多法律的评论家就这一决定对初审法院关于科学证据可采性的决定的影响进行了辩论。这项研究解决经验的可采性问题。具体来说，这项研究将回答以下问题，其中包括：道伯特一般会导致更大的排斥或承认科学证据的一般？法院是否将Daubert应用于技术或专业知识？社会科学证据在多伯特的领导下更有可能被承认吗？在多伯特的领导下，科学证据的审查是否更严格？科学审查的重点是方法还是结果？州法院适用Daubert与联邦法院不同吗？为了研究这些问题，案件决定之前和案件决定后，Daubert使用Westlaw搜索。数据被编码在58个变量上，这些变量评估法院用于承认或不承认专家证据的标准。比较了Daubert前后的变化。这项研究的结果将为法律的学者和社会科学家提供有关最高法院这一重要裁决对法庭上科学使用的影响的信息。 %%% 1993年6月28日，最高法院对Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals，Inc.一案作出裁决。为科学证据的可接受性创造了一个新的标准，并取代了传统的Frye测试。从那时起，许多法律的评论家就这一决定对初审法院关于科学证据可采性的决定的影响进行了辩论。这项研究解决经验的可采性问题。具体来说，研究将回答以下问题，其中包括：道伯特一般导致更大的排斥或一般科学证据的承认？法院是否将Daubert应用于技术或专业知识？社会科学证据在多伯特的领导下更有可能被承认吗？在多伯特的领导下，科学证据的审查是否更严格？科学审查的重点是方法还是结果？州法院适用Daubert与联邦法院不同吗？为了研究这些问题，使用Westlaw搜索选择案例。数据被编码在58个变量上，这些变量评估法院用于承认或不承认专家证据的标准。本研究的结果将为法律的学者提供参考 ***