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

最高法院在道伯特诉梅雷尔陶氏制药案（1993）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，并已被许多州采用。这些科学证据涉及一系列案件，包括医疗事故、刑事起诉和有毒环境污染。法院最近在锦湖轮胎公司诉卡迈克尔案（1999）中的判决将道伯特的标准扩展到所有类型的专家证词。技术和专业证词，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涉及的范围如此之广，锦湖案的判决有可能对陪审团和法院审理的证据的性质和范围产生强大影响，并影响哪些类型的案件将得到成功审理。目前的研究将先前对道伯特决定影响的研究扩展到对锦湖影响的调查。到目前为止，研究人员已经对近3000个联邦和州上诉法院判决中的专家证词进行了编码，评估了这些判决的126个方面。本研究将审查另外约2700个涉及专家证词可采性的联邦和州上诉法院判决。需要解决的主要问题是：1)锦湖事件会导致非科学专家证词的排除增加还是减少？2)法院如何区分科学和非科学的证词？3)哪些领域的专家证词将受到该决定的最大影响？4)道伯特案是否会继续对专家证词的可采性产生影响？对这些影响进行实证调查，将使潜在的诉讼当事人、法律界以及科学界和非科学界的专家了解法院在锦湖事件后如何应对专家证据。

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.