Doctoral Dissertation Research: Evaluating the influence of Daubert's cross-examination safeguard on jurors', attorneys', and judges' judgments about scientific evidence

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court clarified that trial judges were responsible for serving as evidentiary gatekeepers for scientific evidence. When judges fail at this gatekeeping role and admit unreliable expert testimony, the task of identifying and assessing flawed scientific testimony becomes the job of attorneys during cross-examination and jurors during trial. The purpose of the proposed studies is to determine whether judges, attorneys, and jurors are sensitive to threats to scientific validity, to examine the effectiveness of scientifically informed cross-examinations for educating jurors about sophisticated validity threats, and to assess the ability of attorneys and judges to develop questions that would elicit information about scientific validity. Study 1 examines the utility of cross-examination to educate jurors about threats to scientific validity. Jurors will view a videotaped trial, render a verdict, and provide evaluations of the expert's testimony. In Study 2, the researchers will examine whether judges and attorneys are capable of fulfilling Daubert requirements in their evaluation of scientific quality and the development of questions that might highlight concepts of scientific validity or reliability. Judges and attorneys will read a case summary and develop questions intended to assess the reliability and validity of an expert's testimony. This research has the potential to increase our understanding of the Court's assumptions in Daubert. Further, this research will address a critical issue regarding the effectiveness of Daubert?s safeguards that has not been previously addressed, which is to examine whether attorneys and judges have developed the skills necessary to elicit information about scientific reliability and validity during questioning and cross-examination. Further, knowledge of whether cross-examination can be an effective safeguard and whether attorneys and judges are capable of developing effective cross-examination questions may lead to changes in continuing legal education about scientific evidence.