Abstract The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Daubert v. Mewell Dour
Pharmaceutical Inc. has focused attention on judicial treatment of expert testimony. A survey …

The American judiciary traditionally had a laissez-faire approach toward the admissibility of
most categories of expert testimony.'This approach ended in federal courts when the US …

I strongly believe that we need a very stringent standard of proof in criminal cases. I do not
think, however, that Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'has been productive in …

Expert evidence-particularly expert scientific evidencehas long been thought to require
special treatment in the courtroom.'Concern about" junk science" and fear that jurors will be …

This article calls for pragmatic modifications to legal practices for the admissibility of
scientific evidence, including forensic psychological science. We submit that Daubert v …

Ever since the US Supreme Court decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,]
the role of trial judges in determining the admissibility of expert testimony has become …

" Both fields, those of Mental health and Law,... speak two different languages [and] have
different customs and casts of thought... Diagnoses do not convey legal truth. Legal'truth'and …

The purpose of admissibility standards such as Daubert is to prevent the introduction of “junk
science” in court proceedings, particularly in light of how persuasive expert testimony can be …

IT has been more than a decade since the United States Supreme Court first delved into the
problem of defining the limits of scientific (or more precisely, expert) evidence within the law …

In my book Proving the Unprovable, I discussed at length the considerations that might
govern the admissibility of expert psychiatric and psychological testimony in criminal and …