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

在Daubert诉Merrell Dow PharmPharmticals一案中，最高法院澄清，初审法官有责任担任科学证据的证据守门人。当法官未能发挥这一把关作用并承认不可靠的专家证词时，识别和评估有缺陷的科学证词的任务就成为盘问期间的律师和审判期间的陪审员的工作。拟议研究的目的是确定法官、律师和陪审员是否对科学有效性的威胁敏感，检查在科学知情的情况下交叉询问对陪审员进行有关复杂有效性威胁的教育的有效性，并评估律师和法官提出问题以引出有关科学有效性的信息的能力。研究1考察了交叉询问对陪审员进行科学有效性威胁教育的效用。陪审员将观看庭审录像，做出裁决，并对专家的证词进行评估。在研究2中，研究人员将检查法官和律师在评估科学质量和开发可能突出科学有效性或可靠性概念的问题时是否有能力满足道伯特要求。法官和律师将阅读案件摘要，并提出旨在评估专家证词的可靠性和有效性的问题。这项研究有可能增加我们对法院在杜伯特案中的假设的理解。此外，这项研究将解决关于道伯特？S保障措施有效性的一个关键问题，这是以前没有解决的，即检查律师和法官是否发展了必要的技能，以在讯问和交叉询问中获得关于科学可靠性和有效性的信息。此外，了解交叉询问是否可以成为一种有效的保障，以及律师和法官是否有能力制定有效的交叉询问问题，可能会导致关于科学证据的持续法律教育发生变化。

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.