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 Pharmaceuticals一案中，最高法院澄清说，初审法官负责充当科学证据的证据把关人。 当法官未能履行这一把关职责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变成了律师在盘问期间和陪审员在审判期间的工作。拟议的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，检查科学知情的盘问的有效性，教育陪审员关于复杂的有效性威胁，并评估律师和法官的能力，开发问题，将引出有关科学有效性的信息。 研究1探讨了利用交叉询问教育陪审员对科学有效性的威胁。 陪审员将观看审判录像，作出裁决，并对专家的证词进行评估。 在研究2中，研究人员将研究法官和律师是否能够满足Daubert的要求，在他们的科学质量和发展的问题，可能会突出的概念，科学的有效性或可靠性的评价。 法官和律师将阅读案件摘要，并提出问题，以评估专家证词的可靠性和有效性。 这项研究有可能增加我们对最高法院在Daubert案中的假设的理解。 此外，这项研究将解决一个关键问题的有效性Daubert？的保障措施，以前没有解决，这是检查律师和法官是否已经开发了必要的技能，以获得有关科学的可靠性和有效性的信息，在询问和盘问。 此外，了解反诘问是否可以成为一种有效的保障，以及律师和法官是否能够提出有效的反诘问问题，可能会导致有关科学证据的继续法律的教育发生变化。

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.