600:(1999), where the evidence in question was from a technician and not a scientist. The technician was going to testify that the only possible cause of a tire blowout must have been a manufacturing defect, as he could not determine any other possible cause. The Court of Appeal had admitted the evidence on the assumption that Daubert did not apply to technical evidence, only scientific evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, saying that the standard in Daubert could apply to merely technical evidence, but that in this case, the evidence of the proposed expert did not meet the standard.
415:. The Ninth Circuit found the district court correctly granted summary judgment because the plaintiffs' proffered evidence had not yet been accepted as a reliable technique by scientists who had had an opportunity to scrutinize and verify the methods used by those scientists. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit was skeptical of the fact that the plaintiffs' evidence appeared to be generated in preparation for litigation. Without their proffered evidence, the Ninth Circuit doubted that the plaintiffs could prove at a trial that the Bendectin had caused their birth defects.
93:
24:
534:
underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." This preliminary assessment can turn on whether something has been tested, whether an idea has been subjected to scientific peer review or published in scientific journals, the rate of error involved in the technique, and even general acceptance, among other things. It focuses on methodology and principles, not the ultimate conclusions generated.
588:(5th ed. 1989), pp. 34–57, explains how psychology is more like astrology than astronomy because it does not make predictions about an individual which are falsifiable. He wrote that "the impressive thing about" Einstein's predictions "is the risk involved...If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted." But "it was impossible to describe a human behaviour" which would be accepted as proving psychology false.
538:
scientific project is advanced by broad and wide-ranging consideration of a multitude of hypotheses, for those that are incorrect will eventually be shown to be so, and that in itself is an advance." Rule 702 was intended to resolve legal disputes and, thus, had to be interpreted in conjunction with other rules of evidence and with other legal means of ending those disputes.
530:
to the pertinent inquiry as a prerequisite to admissibility." For example, although it is within the purview of scientific knowledge, knowing whether the moon was full on a given night does not typically assist the trier of fact in knowing whether a person was sane when he or she committed a given act.
673:
The Yale Law
Pronouncing Dictionary gives different guidance and quotes Jason Daubert himself. He related in a letter to Peter Nordberg, who was working on his blog, "A Definitive Solution to the Pronunciation Riddle", BLOG 702, Jan. 30, 2006 ("Jason Daubert writes ... 'DAW-bert' is how I pronounce
395:
because their expert submitted documents showing that no published scientific study demonstrated a link between
Bendectin and birth defects in humans. Daubert and Schuller submitted expert evidence of their own that suggested that Bendectin could cause birth defects. Daubert and Schuller's evidence,
537:
The Court stressed that the new standard under Rule 702 was rooted in the judicial process and intended to be distinct and separate from the search for scientific truth. "Scientific conclusions are subject to perpetual revision. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputes finally and quickly. The
529:
in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue in the case. The trier of fact is often either a jury or a judge; but other fact finders may exist within the contemplation of the federal rules of evidence. To be helpful to the trier of fact, there must be a "valid scientific connection
541:
Cross examination within the adversary process is adequate to help legal decision makers arrive at efficient ends to disputes. "We recognize that, in practice, a gatekeeping role for the judge, no matter how flexible, inevitably on occasion will prevent the jury from learning of authentic insights
533:
Third, the Rules expressly provided that the judge would make the threshold determination regarding whether certain scientific knowledge would indeed assist the trier of fact in the manner contemplated by Rule 702. "This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology
496:
The text of Rule 702 did not make admissibility of expert testimony depend on general acceptance, and there was no evidence that
Congress intended to incorporate a general acceptance standard into Rule 702. "Given the Rules' permissive backdrop and their inclusion of a specific rule on expert
470:
was no longer the governing standard for admitting scientific evidence in trials held in federal court. The
Supreme Court agreed and had already ruled that where common law rules conflicted with provisions of the Rules, the enactment of the Rules had the effect of supplanting the common law.
491:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or
206:
The
Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admission of scientific evidence in a trial held in federal court. They require the trial judge to act as a gatekeeper before admitting the evidence, determining that the evidence is scientifically valid and relevant to the case at
611:
While not a matter of law, there has been disagreement over the pronunciation of the plaintiff's surname. Michael H. Gottesman, Jason
Daubert's attorney, reports that Daubert and his family do not use the French pronunciation, which would sound similar to "dough-bear"
556:
The
Supreme Court reversed, and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On remand, the court analyzed the case under the new standard, upholding the district court's original grant of summary judgement for the defendant.
560:
After
Daubert, it was expected that the range of scientific opinion evidence used in court would be expanded. However, courts have strictly applied the standards in Daubert, and it has generally been successful in excluding
185:
435:
542:
and innovations. That, nevertheless, is the balance that is struck by Rules of
Evidence designed not for the exhaustive search for cosmic understanding but for the particularized resolution of legal disputes."
505:
made 'general acceptance' the exclusive test for admitting expert testimony. That austere standard, absent from, and incompatible with, the
Federal Rules of Evidence, should not be applied in federal trials."
438:
held that evidence could be admitted in court only if "the thing from which the deduction is made" is "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs."
1129:
719:
475:
had remained part of the federal common law of evidence because it was decided almost 50 years before the Rules were enacted, but the text of the Rules did not suggest a congressional intent to keep the
522:
for proposing and refining theoretical explanations about the world that are subject to further testing and refinement," Rule 702 defines "scientific knowledge" as arising from the scientific method.
1109:
408:
animal studies, pharmacological studies, and reanalysis of other published studies, and these methodologies had not yet gained acceptance within the general scientific community.
1026:
770:
714:
144:
412:
193:
591:
The considerations in Daubert do not all have to be met for the evidence to be admitted. It is necessary only that the majority of the tests be substantially complied with.
518:, meaning that the testimony must be scientific in nature and must be grounded in "knowledge." Since science cannot claim absolute certainty, instead representing "a
670:. The popular use of the French pronunciation may have arisen from Gottesman refraining from correcting the justices during oral argument before the Supreme Court.
1139:
937:
Liberty and Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the New Role of Scientific Evidence in the Criminal Courts
707:
792:
Federal Rule of Evidence 101 (Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993); Federal Rule of Evidence 1101 & annotations thereto (Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993).
1134:
1124:
1144:
944:
45:
97:
67:
166:
Prod. Liab. Rep. ¶ 13,494; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4825; 93 Daily Journal DAR 8148; 23 ELR 20979; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 632
1149:
1046:
569:", as well as new or experimental techniques and research that the decision might have been expected to deem admissible.
699:
596:
346:
1099:
380:
338:
455:
court ruled it could not be used in court. Over the years, scholars disputed the proper scope and application of the
38:
32:
463:
354:
49:
444:
1082:
250:
125:
1030:
982:
Solomon, Shana M.; Hackett, Edward J. (1996). "Setting Boundaries between Science and Law: Lessons from
774:
430:
322:
136:
497:
testimony that does not mention 'general acceptance,' the assertion that the Rules somehow assimilated
825:
411:
The district court granted summary judgment for Merrell Dow, and Daubert and Schuller appealed to the
384:
813:
955:
151:
1064:
871:
Bernstein, David E. (2008). "Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the
379:
Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were born with serious birth defects. They and their parents sued
1003:
923:
181:
843:"Pronouncing Dictionary of the Supreme Court of the United States | Documents Collection Center"
815:
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F. 3d 1311 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1995
580:
whose summary was quoted in Daubert: "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its
940:
915:
898:
884:
391:
had caused the birth defects. Merrell Dow moved the case to federal court, and then moved for
242:
222:
888:
1055:
995:
907:
688:
644:
615:
551:
392:
365:
342:
189:
777:
514:
Three key provisions of the Rules governed admission of expert testimony in court. First,
274:
262:
451:. In 1923, this blood pressure test was not widely accepted among scientists, and so the
1037:
842:
1073:
693:
581:
254:
238:
116:
William Daubert, et ux., etc., et al., Petitioners v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
1118:
1007:
927:
566:
358:
163:
159:
562:
266:
139:
577:
230:
999:
742:
155:
911:
683:
448:
388:
919:
1110:
Daubert-The Most Influential Supreme Court Decision You've Never Heard of
1091:
398:
826:"Admissibility of Expert Testimony After Daubert: The "Prestige" Factor"
573:
404:
291:
Blackmun, joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas
1100:
Amicus brief of Atlantic Legal Foundation in support of Merrell Dow
804:
Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) (Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993).
462:
The plaintiffs successfully argued that after Congress adopted the
1104:
638:. Rather, they pronounce their family name in the same manner as
720:
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
364:; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the
896:
Faigman, David L. (2002). "Is Science Different for Lawyers?".
586:
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge
92:
659:
630:
487:
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides (in part):
17:
653:
621:
387:, in a California District Court, claiming that the drug
1130:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
960:
and the Need to Resurrect the Philosophical Insight of
715:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 509
662:
656:
650:
627:
618:
647:
624:
303:
295:
287:
282:
211:
200:
176:
171:
131:
121:
111:
104:
85:
315:This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
576:and "pseudoscience" was the theme of a book by
584:, or refutability, or testability." The book,
196:1991); certiorari granted, 506 U.S. 914 (1992)
8:
1023:Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
984:Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
958:Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
767:Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
708:Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson
341:case determining the standard for admitting
334:Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
180:Summary judgment granted to defendants, 727
447:deception test, a "crude precursor" to the
353:, the Court held that the enactment of the
309:Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a), 702, 703
82:
594:The principle in Daubert was expanded in
68:Learn how and when to remove this message
31:This article includes a list of general
1105:Daubert Institute for Science & Law
988:Science, Technology, & Human Values
971:Harvard Journal of Law & Technology
731:
510:The standard governing expert testimony
158:4408; 61 U.S.L.W. 4805; 27 U.S.P.Q.2D (
525:Second, the scientific knowledge must
86:Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
1140:United States expert witness case law
80:1993 United States Supreme Court case
7:
737:
735:
434:, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), the
1135:Federal Rules of Evidence case law
98:Supreme Court of the United States
37:it lacks sufficient corresponding
14:
1125:United States Supreme Court cases
1033:579 (1993) is available from:
480:rule, so the Court reasoned that
956:"Dogma of Empiricism Revisited:
747:Radiolab Podcasts | WNYC Studios
643:
614:
91:
22:
1145:1993 in United States case law
1:
935:McDorman, Richard E. (2010).
830:43 Emory L.J. 867, 867 (1994)
700:Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
597:Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
337:, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a
299:Rehnquist, joined by Stevens
381:Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
339:United States Supreme Court
1166:
1092:Oyez (oral argument audio)
1000:10.1177/016224399602100201
549:
357:implicitly overturned the
832:. Retrieved on 2009-01-13
464:Federal Rules of Evidence
355:Federal Rules of Evidence
320:
313:
308:
216:
205:
90:
954:Schwartz, Adina (1996).
527:assist the trier of fact
484:was no longer the rule.
912:10.1126/science.1072515
790:See, in pertinent part,
445:systolic blood pressure
52:more precise citations.
847:documents.law.yale.edu
674:it, if that helps!").
494:
396:however, was based on
383:Inc., a subsidiary of
962:Frye v. United States
489:
431:Frye v. United States
323:Frye v. United States
188:1989); affirmed, 951
150:113 S. Ct. 2786; 125
107:Decided June 28, 1993
105:Argued March 30, 1993
1150:Dow Chemical Company
824:Gottesman, Michael.
516:scientific knowledge
385:Dow Chemical Company
1083:Library of Congress
572:Discerning between
251:Sandra Day O'Connor
227:Associate Justices
946:978-0-9839112-2-7
906:(5580): 339–340.
604:Pronunciation of
501:is unconvincing.
330:
329:
223:William Rehnquist
78:
77:
70:
1157:
1096:
1090:
1087:
1081:
1078:
1072:
1069:
1063:
1060:
1054:
1051:
1045:
1042:
1036:
1011:
978:
968:
950:
931:
892:
858:
857:
855:
853:
839:
833:
822:
816:
811:
805:
799:
793:
787:
781:
764:
758:
757:
755:
753:
743:"The Gatekeeper"
739:
689:Daubert Standard
669:
668:
665:
664:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
637:
636:
633:
632:
629:
626:
623:
620:
552:Daubert standard
428:In a 1923 case,
419:Majority opinion
393:summary judgment
343:expert testimony
212:Court membership
95:
94:
83:
73:
66:
62:
59:
53:
48:this article by
39:inline citations
26:
25:
18:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1115:
1114:
1094:
1088:
1085:
1079:
1076:
1070:
1067:
1061:
1058:
1052:
1049:
1043:
1040:
1034:
1018:
981:
966:
953:
947:
934:
895:
877:Iowa Law Review
870:
867:
865:Further reading
862:
861:
851:
849:
841:
840:
836:
823:
819:
812:
808:
800:
796:
788:
784:
765:
761:
751:
749:
741:
740:
733:
728:
680:
646:
642:
617:
613:
609:
554:
548:
512:
426:
421:
377:
316:
275:Clarence Thomas
265:
263:Anthony Kennedy
253:
243:John P. Stevens
241:
167:
106:
100:
81:
74:
63:
57:
54:
44:Please help to
43:
27:
23:
12:
11:
5:
1163:
1161:
1153:
1152:
1147:
1142:
1137:
1132:
1127:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1065:Google Scholar
1017:
1016:External links
1014:
1013:
1012:
994:(2): 131–156.
979:
951:
945:
932:
893:
866:
863:
860:
859:
834:
817:
806:
794:
782:
759:
730:
729:
727:
724:
723:
722:
717:
712:
704:
696:
694:Expert witness
691:
686:
679:
676:
608:
602:
582:falsifiability
550:Main article:
547:
544:
511:
508:
425:
422:
420:
417:
376:
373:
347:federal courts
328:
327:
318:
317:
314:
311:
310:
306:
305:
301:
300:
297:
296:Concur/dissent
293:
292:
289:
285:
284:
280:
279:
278:
277:
255:Antonin Scalia
239:Harry Blackmun
228:
225:
220:
214:
213:
209:
208:
203:
202:
198:
197:
178:
174:
173:
169:
168:
149:
133:
129:
128:
123:
119:
118:
113:
112:Full case name
109:
108:
102:
101:
96:
88:
87:
79:
76:
75:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1162:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1128:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1120:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1093:
1084:
1075:
1066:
1057:
1048:
1047:CourtListener
1039:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
980:
976:
972:
965:
963:
959:
952:
948:
942:
938:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
900:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
875:Revolution".
874:
869:
868:
864:
848:
844:
838:
835:
831:
827:
821:
818:
814:
810:
807:
803:
798:
795:
791:
786:
783:
779:
776:
772:
768:
763:
760:
748:
744:
738:
736:
732:
725:
721:
718:
716:
713:
710:
709:
705:
702:
701:
697:
695:
692:
690:
687:
685:
682:
681:
677:
675:
671:
667:
641:
635:
607:
603:
601:
599:
598:
592:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
570:
568:
567:pseudoscience
564:
558:
553:
545:
543:
539:
535:
531:
528:
523:
521:
517:
509:
507:
504:
500:
493:
488:
485:
483:
479:
474:
469:
465:
460:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:dealt with a
442:
437:
433:
432:
423:
418:
416:
414:
413:Ninth Circuit
409:
407:
406:
401:
400:
394:
390:
386:
382:
374:
372:
370:
368:
363:
361:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
325:
324:
319:
312:
307:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:Case opinions
281:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
226:
224:
221:
219:Chief Justice
218:
217:
215:
210:
204:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
170:
165:
161:
157:
153:
147:
146:
141:
138:
134:
130:
127:
124:
120:
117:
114:
110:
103:
99:
89:
84:
72:
69:
61:
58:February 2008
51:
47:
41:
40:
34:
29:
20:
19:
16:
1022:
991:
987:
983:
974:
970:
961:
957:
936:
903:
897:
880:
876:
872:
850:. Retrieved
846:
837:
829:
820:
809:
801:
797:
789:
785:
780: (1993).
766:
762:
750:. Retrieved
746:
706:
698:
672:
639:
610:
605:
595:
593:
590:
585:
571:
563:junk science
559:
555:
540:
536:
532:
526:
524:
519:
515:
513:
502:
498:
495:
492:otherwise...
490:
486:
481:
477:
472:
467:
461:
456:
452:
440:
436:D.C. Circuit
429:
427:
410:
403:
397:
378:
366:
359:
350:
333:
332:
331:
321:
304:Laws applied
270:
267:David Souter
258:
246:
234:
172:Case history
143:
115:
64:
55:
36:
15:
883:: 451–495.
578:Karl Popper
231:Byron White
50:introducing
1119:Categories
977:: 149–237.
726:References
156:U.S. LEXIS
154:469; 1993
122:Docket no.
33:references
1008:143742037
928:152927756
684:Bendectin
546:Aftermath
466:in 1975,
449:polygraph
424:Prior law
389:Bendectin
186:S.D. Cal.
152:L. Ed. 2d
132:Citations
1021:Text of
920:12130766
778:579, 589
752:July 16,
678:See also
640:Dow-Burt
399:in vitro
369:standard
362:standard
288:Majority
194:9th Cir.
162:) 1200;
1056:Findlaw
1038:Cornell
899:Science
873:Daubert
606:Daubert
574:science
520:process
405:in vivo
367:Daubert
351:Daubert
201:Holding
182:F.Supp.
46:improve
1095:
1089:
1086:
1080:
1077:
1074:Justia
1071:
1068:
1062:
1059:
1053:
1050:
1044:
1041:
1035:
1006:
943:
926:
918:
889:963461
887:
852:May 9,
769:,
711:(1986)
703:(1995)
565:" or "
459:test.
326:(1923)
273:
271:·
269:
261:
259:·
257:
249:
247:·
245:
237:
235:·
233:
192:1128 (
126:92-102
35:, but
1029:
1004:S2CID
967:(PDF)
924:S2CID
773:
375:Facts
349:. In
207:hand.
184:570 (
177:Prior
1031:U.S.
941:ISBN
916:PMID
885:SSRN
854:2022
775:U.S.
754:2022
503:Frye
499:Frye
482:Frye
478:Frye
473:Frye
468:Frye
457:Frye
453:Frye
441:Frye
402:and
360:Frye
190:F.2d
145:more
137:U.S.
135:509
1027:509
996:doi
986:".
908:doi
904:297
802:See
771:509
631:ɛər
345:in
164:CCH
160:BNA
140:579
1121::
1025:,
1002:.
992:21
990:.
975:10
973:.
969:.
939:.
922:.
914:.
902:.
881:93
879:.
845:.
828:,
745:.
734:^
660:ər
654:aʊ
622:oʊ
371:.
1010:.
998::
964:"
949:.
930:.
910::
891:.
856:.
756:.
666:/
663:t
657:b
651:d
648:ˈ
645:/
634:/
628:b
625:ˈ
619:d
616:/
561:"
148:)
142:(
71:)
65:(
60:)
56:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.