Jan 1, 2002
In its 1993 Daubert decision, the United States Supreme Court clarified the standards judges should use in deciding whether to admit expert evidence into federal cases. The Supreme Court directed judges to evaluate the method and reasoning underlying the expert evidence and to admit only evidence that was reliable and relevant. This study examines how judges have changed the way they evaluate expert evidence since Daubert and how the parties proposing and challenging evidence have responded as a result.
"… This study should not be underestimated. It makes a valuable contribution, if incremental contribution to the evolving understanding of how the DAUBERT standard is actually working."
- The Law and Politics Book Review