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 案中，最高法院澄清初审法官有责任充当科学证据的证据守门人。 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成为交叉询问期间律师和审判期间陪审员的工作。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，检查科学知情的交叉询问对教育陪审员了解复杂的有效性威胁的有效性，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 检验了交叉询问在教育陪审员了解科学有效性所面临的威胁方面的效用。 陪审员将观看审判录像、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以及提出可能强调科学有效性或可靠性概念的问题时是否有能力满足多伯特要求。 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多伯特案中的假设的理解。 此外，这项研究将解决一个关于多伯特保障措施有效性的关键问题，该问题之前尚未解决，即检查律师和法官是否已经掌握了在提问和交叉询问期间获取有关科学可靠性和有效性信息所需的技能。 此外，了解交叉询问是否可以成为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的变化。

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.