A Continuing Empirical Analysis of the Admissibility of Expert Testimony: Investigating the Effects of Kumho Tire v. Carmichael

对专家证词可采性的持续实证分析：调查锦湖轮胎诉卡迈克尔案的影响

• 批准号: 9986832
• 负责人: Steven Penrod
• 金额: $ 10.29万
• 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: 2000
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2000-02-01 至 2002-01-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=9986832&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Continuing; Empirical; Analysis; Admissibility; Expert

The Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) determined the standards under which scientific evidence may be considered by courts and juries in all federal cases and has been adopted by many states. Such scientific evidence is involved in a range of cases including medical malpractice, criminal prosecution, and toxic environmental pollution. The Court's recent decision in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) extended Daubert's standards to all types of expert testimony. Technical and specialized testimony, which potentially includes everything from the proper construction of tires to psychiatry and banking, now fall under this standard. Because specialized and technical experts cover such a broad range, the Kumho decision has the potential to exert a powerful influence on the nature and extent of evidence that juries and courts hear and to influence what types of cases will be tried successfully. The present research extends prior studies of the effects of the Daubert decision to an investigation on the effects of Kumho. To date, the discussion of expert testimony in almost 3000 federal and state appellate court decisions has been evaluated through coding by the researchers of 126 aspects of those decisions. The present research will examine an estimated 2700 additional federal and state appellate court decisions which address the admissibility of expert testimony. Among the major questions to be addressed are: 1) will Kumho lead to an increased or a decreased exclusion of non-scientific expert testimony? 2) how will the courts distinguish between testimony which is scientific and non-scientific? 3) which domains of expert testimony will be most affected by the decision? 4) will Daubert continue to have an impact on the admissibility of expert testimony? Empirical investigation of these effects will inform potential litigants, the legal community, and the community of experts, both scientific and non-scientific, on how courts are responding to expert evidence in the aftermath of Kumho.

最高法院在Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals（1993）一案中的裁决确定了法院和陪审团在所有联邦案件中考虑科学证据的标准，许多州都采用了这一标准。这些科学证据涉及一系列案件，包括医疗事故，刑事诉讼和有毒环境污染。最高法院最近在Kumho Tire Co. v.卡迈克尔案（1999年）中的裁决将Daubert的标准扩大到所有类型的专家证词。 技术和专业的证词，可能包括从轮胎的正确构造到精神病学和银行业的一切，现在都属于这一标准。 由于专业和技术专家涵盖的范围如此之广，因此锦湖案的判决有可能对陪审团和法院听取的证据的性质和范围产生强大的影响，并影响哪类案件将得到成功审判。 本研究扩展了以前的研究的Daubert决定的影响调查的影响Kumho。 迄今为止，近3000个联邦和州上诉法院判决中专家证词的讨论已经通过研究人员对这些判决的126个方面进行编码进行了评估。 目前的研究将审查估计2700个额外的联邦和州上诉法院的决定，解决专家证词的可采性。 其中要解决的主要问题是：1）将Kumho导致增加或减少排除非科学的专家证词？2)法庭如何区分科学和非科学的证词？3)专家证词的哪些领域将最受该决定的影响？4)道伯特案是否会继续影响专家证词的可采性 对这些影响的实证调查将告知潜在的诉讼当事人，法律的社区，以及科学和非科学的专家社区，关于法院如何在锦湖事件后对专家证据作出反应。