Daubert Trilogy Paper
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
New Jersey Institute Of Technology *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
320
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by DoctorFlowerArmadillo43
Daubert Trilogy is a set of three cases with landmark judgements that have changed the
way that scientific evidence is acceptable and admissible in our courts today. The cases that
are part of the Daubert Trilogy are Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993),
General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999). The three cases
of the Daubert Trilogy had significant effect on the admissibility of testimony in court, and they
collectively paved the way to a new standard for determining the scientific validity and
reliability of evidence that is presented in the courtroom.
Prior to the Daubert Trilogy, the Frye standard was the prominent rule that was
governing the admissibility of expert testimony in court. The Frye standard that was
established via Frye v. United States (1923), established that the scientific evidence presented
to the court must be acceptable the scientific community for it to be admissible by the court.
The Daubert Trilogy shifted the focus from the scientific community to the scientific method
and emphasized that the judge become the gatekeeper in their assessment of what is
admissible in terms of scientific evidence.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. established that the Frye standard cannot
be used to assess if scientific evidence is admissible in the court room or not. This led to a new
standard being set where the judge was ordered to be the gatekeeper in the assessment of
admissibility of scientific evidence in the court. The judge had to determine if the evidence is
reliable, relevant, and valid. The judge had to assess whether the scientific theory or scientific
technique could be validated, whether it needs to be peer reviewed, if there are any
publications relating it to the case, and whether the theory is widely accepted in the scientific
community by its peers.
In General Electric v. Joiner the Supreme Court took it one step further with the
Daubert standard by emphasizing that the trial judge has a broad discretion in deciding the
admissibility of evidence and whether to exclude or admit based on scientific evidence. The
courts upheld that the judge could decide on admission or exclusion of expert evidence based
on scientific discovery or if there is a broad gap in connecting the physical with the scientific or
as if there is issue due to methodology vs expertise.
In the case of Kumho v. Carmichael built on the GE v. Joiner case and the Daubert
standard by adding nonscientific expert testimony. Non-scientific meaning expert testimony
involving engineering or technical expertise testimony. The Court ruled that the Daubert
standard can be applied to any form of expert testimony, regardless of its field of expertise. It
could be made admissible or non-admissible based on the discretion of the judge and his
choosing.
The Daubert Trilogy has made a significant impact on our justice system and its
evolution. The higher or newer standard that it set has led to a tougher approach in the
assessment of scientific evidence. It also ensured that only reliable and valid evidence be made
admissible to the court. This tougher standard has led to saving many people from wrongful
convictions where the evidence solely relied on scientific evidence. It has also led to greater
scrutiny of expert witnesses that are added to the witness list.
On the other hand the Daubert standard has also faced criticism for creating the need of
a higher burden of proof on the plaintiff. Many people believe that this higher standard has
made it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to establish probable cause for product liability and
toxic cases. By raising the bar some critics even believe that the Daubert standard has led to
an over reliability on scientific evidence taking away or even overshadowing the other forms of
evidence such as eyewitness testimony.
The Daubert Trilogy has made a significant impact on the way we approach scientific.
evidence and how it is made admissible in our courts. It has paved way for us to make a more
rigorous assessment of scientific evidence. Even though as any new these new standards have
critics, but it has undoubtedly had a major impact on our criminal justice system. It has had this.
impact in a way where we only admit reliable and valid evidence in our court rooms.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help