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

在道伯特诉梅雷尔道制药公司案中，最高法院澄清说，审判法官有责任充当科学证据的把关人。当法官未能履行这一把关角色，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了律师在交叉询问期间和陪审员在审判期间的工作。拟议研究的目的是确定法官、律师和陪审员是否对科学效度威胁敏感，检验科学告知的交叉询问在教育陪审员了解复杂效度威胁方面的有效性，并评估律师和法官提出可以引出科学效度信息的问题的能力。研究1检验了交叉询问的效用，以教育陪审员对科学有效性的威胁。陪审员将观看录像审判，作出裁决，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提出可能突出科学有效性或可靠性概念的问题时是否能够满足道伯特要求。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道伯特案中的假设的理解。此外，本研究将解决关于Daubert？这是一个以前没有解决的保障措施，即检查律师和法官是否已经发展出必要的技能，以便在询问和交叉询问期间获取有关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提出有效的交叉询问问题，可能会导致有关科学证据的继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.