HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cecil, J. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cecil, J. S. Related Collections Health Law Health Policy Government

Joe S. Cecil, PhD, JD

The author is with the Federal Judicial Center’s Program on Scientific and Technical Evidence, Washington, DC.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Joe S. Cecil, Federal Judicial Center, One Columbus Circle, NE, Washington, DC 20002 (e-mail: jcecil{at}fjc.gov).

In the ten years since Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, the standards for admissibility at trial of expert testimony in general and scientific evidence in particular have become more demanding. Reviews of recent cases and empirical studies of federal judges’ and attorneys’ practices indicate that judges are more likely to consider the admissibility of expert evidence prior to trial, to inquire more deeply into the reasoning and methodology that supports the expert opinions, and to limit or exclude such evidence from presentation at trial. Studies of published cases confirm this finding.

Recent cases consider more difficult questions arising from the differing methodologies used in various areas of science. The current legal framework that assesses admissibility in terms of professional practice outside the courtroom is poorly suited to cases that require expertise across a wide range of specialties and force judges to choose from among different scientific methodologies. Future research should focus on the pretrial screening of expert testimony and interactions between the attorneys and experts in shaping that testimony.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Bingham, L. Boden, R. Clapp, P. Hoppin, S. Krimsky, D. Michaels, D. Ozonoff, and A. Robbins BINGHAM ET AL. RESPOND Am J Public Health, February 1, 2006; 96(2): 206 - 207. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Michaels Scientific Evidence and Public Policy Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S5 - S7. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Melnick A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S30 - S34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Michaels and C. Monforton Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public's Health and Environment Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S39 - S48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]