A 'Scientific' Examination of the Admissibility of Scientific Expert Testimony Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

1993年6月28日，最高法院在Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.一案中作出裁决，为科学证据的可采性创造了一个新的标准，取代了传统的Frye测试。从那时起，许多法律评论员就该决定对初审法院关于科学证词可采性的裁决的影响进行了辩论。本研究从经验上解决了可采性问题。具体来说，该研究将回答以下问题，其中包括：Daubert是否普遍导致更大程度的排除或承认科学证据？法院是否将道伯特法应用于技术知识或专业知识？在道伯特理论下，社会科学证据或多或少会被接受吗？在道伯特治下，对科学证据的审查是否更加严格？科学审查的重点是方法论还是结果？州法院对道伯特案的适用与联邦法院不同吗？为了研究这些问题，使用Westlaw搜索选择在Daubert之前和之后判决的案件。数据是根据58个变量编码的，这些变量评估了法院用来承认或不承认专家证据的标准。比较了Daubert前后的变化。这项研究的结果将使法律学者和社会科学家了解最高法院这一重要裁决对法庭上科学运用的影响。1993年6月28日，最高法院在道伯特诉梅雷尔·道制药公司一案中作出裁决，为科学证据的可采性制定了新的标准，取代了传统的弗莱检验。从那时起，许多法律评论员就该决定对初审法院关于科学证词可采性的裁决的影响进行了辩论。本研究从经验上解决了可采性问题。具体来说，该研究将回答以下问题，其中包括：一般来说，道伯特是否会导致更大程度的排除或承认科学证据？法院是否将道伯特法应用于技术知识或专业知识？在道伯特理论下，社会科学证据或多或少会被接受吗？在道伯特治下，对科学证据的审查是否更加严格？科学审查的重点是方法论还是结果？州法院对道伯特案的适用与联邦法院不同吗？为了研究这些问题，使用Westlaw搜索选择案例。数据是根据58个变量编码的，这些变量评估了法院用来承认或不承认专家证据的标准。本研究结果将为法律学者***提供参考

Abstract Penrod 9618580 On June 28, 1993 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. creating a new standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence and displacing the traditional Frye test. Since then, many legal commentators have debated the effects of the decision on trial court decisions concerning the admissibility of scientific testimony. This research addresses empirically the admissibility question. Specifically, the research will answer the following questions, among others: Has Daubert generally lead to greater exclusion or admission of scientific evidence in general? Are the courts applying Daubert to technical or specialized knowledge? Is social science evidence more or less likely to be admitted under Daubert? Is the review of scientific evidence more rigorous under Daubert? Is the focus of scientific scrutiny methodology or results? Do the State courts apply Daubert differently from Federal courts? To study these issues, cases decided before and cases decided after Daubert are selected using a Westlaw search. Data are coded on 58 variables assessing the criteria courts use to admit or not, expert evidence. Changes before and after Daubert are compared. The results of this research will inform legal scholars and social scientists as to the influence of this important Supreme Court decision on the use of science in the courtroom. %%% On June 28, 1993 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. creating a new standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence and displacing the traditional Frye test. Since then, many legal commentators have debated the effects of the decision on trial court decisions concerning the admissibility of scientific testimony. This research addresses empirically the admissibility question. Specifically, the research will answer the following questions, among others: Has Daubert generally lead to greater exclusion or admission of scientific evid ence in general? Are the courts applying Daubert to technical or specialized knowledge? Is social science evidence more or less likely to be admitted under Daubert? Is the review of scientific evidence more rigorous under Daubert? Is the focus of scientific scrutiny methodology or results? Do the State courts apply Daubert differently from Federal courts? To study these issues, cases are selected using a Westlaw search. Data are coded on 58 variables assessing the criteria courts use to admit or not, expert evidence. The results of this research will inform legal scholars ***