Daubert-related issues
by Moderator on Sep.04, 2009, under Topics for discussion
The so-called Daubert Trilogy (Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho) is made up of the following cases:
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. JOINER (96-188) 78 F.3d 524
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
They, along with rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence, significantly changed the landscape of expert testimony, especially in criminal cases, by changing the focus from the generally accepted standard to the requirement to show reliability. Even in states that still follow the Frye standard, Daubert issues are being used to challenge the weight of the evidence proffered. Clearly, the courts will continue to debate these issues as they try to define expert evidence. Readers are invited to weigh in on these issues.
October 7th, 2009 on 4:54 am
I’ve always been surprised that more forensic scientists aren’t questioned on the ipse dixit issue in Joiner. What else is the assertion of ultimate, absolute identity than the say-so of the expert? It is all well and good to say that no two fingerprints have ever been found to “match”, but where’s the documented proof? And, although it may be a bit facile, the sharp retort to that by an attorney could be, “What about the Mayfield case?”.
This begs the question: What is sufficient supporting rationale to avoid a claim of ipse dixit?