The article seeks to investigate appellate opinions that are evaluated on key variables related to expert admissibility to measure the effects of Daubert in criminal cases. Every day, there are many technical and scientific advances that are made, and often these advances tend to affect the evidence being presented, inclusive of expert testimony. The article opinionates that the art of determining which expert evidence is admissible and which one is “junk” becomes an overwhelming task especially for trail judges who have the sole mandate of making appropriate decisions. In the article, the authors argue that the judges are always in dilemma of deciphering multifaceted issues in bid to determine admissibility, implying the judges’ decision to either admit or exclude expert testimony, thus affecting the outcome of the case being handled. This is likely to deny compensation to an injured plaintiff who may suffer from some grievous harm. On the other hand, in criminal cases, it has been found that that expert testimony will convince the jury of judges to convict a defendant, thus depriving them of their freedom and the right to life.
The article has explored the history of Daubert in various criminal cases over the years. The essence of showing these examples is to primarily impart some knowledge and experience about the same. The major focus of the Daubert opinion is to compel the courts to attempt and evaluate requisite scientific evidence that would be based on the methodology being used, and not necessarily the conclusions being derived by the leading researcher. Since it is discovered that majority of the judges are not equipped well with matters related to scientific methodology, it is imperative to assist them in evaluation of dependability of scientific evidence. At this juncture, the questions asked at the beginning of the research were:
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Is it proper for court judges to proof whether the knowledge is falsifiable or tested?
Is it proper for the technique or theory that was subjected to publication or peer review, be considered as an avenue of measuring the rationality of the methodology?
Having asked these questions, the article proposed the below objectives to guide in answering the above questions:
To investigate the potential or known error rate of the study technique.
To study the appropriateness of general acceptance among the judges as a good criterion.
Having proposed these, the researchers would now be in a position to review the standard under which decisions in court trials are determined. This is because, after the introduction of Daubert decision, appellate courts had somewhat adopted different standards of reviewing decision making with regard to admissibility.
Armed with the goal of determining the actual effects of the Daubert decision, the article sought to study appellate court opinions touching on expert testimony. The researchers selected appellate court decisions based on their potential to shown trends in judicial decision-making regarding expert testimony. The variables chosen for the study involved the four types of Daubert criteria together with the Daubert -related concepts. Then, potential judgment criteria extracted from the Rules being evaluated were expert qualifications and relevance.
The results from the research indicated that from the total 693 cases being examined, 370 of them were from the federal appellate courts while the rest were from national appellate courts. One of the major concerns raised regarding to Daubert decision was its key potential to effect the permissibility of expert testimony. When it comes to computation of the mean length of conversation dedicated to the potential judgment criteria, every cases found in the database is included.
It can be seen that the article is not biased, but has fully covered the research elements: questions, hypotheses, study objectives, methodology, methods, participants, and results/outcomes. Thus, the information derived from the research can be applied in various circumstances depending with the need.
Reference
Groscup, J. L., Penrod, S. D., Studebaker, C. A., Huss, M. T., & O, N. K. M. (January 01, 2002). The Effects of Daubert on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony in State and Federal Criminal Cases. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 8, 339-372.
