Abstract
As the title suggests, this article examines the effects of the Daubert trilogy, a series of cases on expert evidence practices within the federal court system. The authors believe Daubert has placed judges in a “gatekeeper” function, requiring them to determine the scientific validity and admissibility of expert testimony. The other two cases within the trilogy further defined this new function of federal judges. The authors first discuss the background of their research project and the legal history and other studies done in this area. In the next section the authors go into great detail as to the methods of their research and then go on to display their empirical data of the effects of the Daubert trilogy in the form of easy-to-read charts. The charts are followed by a discussion of the results, comparing the federal court system during the pre-Daubert period to the post-Daubert period. Through the use of clearly defined samples one is able to easily see the actual effects the Daubert trilogy has had on the admissibility of expert evidence in federal courts. The reader is left with a better understanding of contemporary expert evidence standards as the authors have discussed their findings within the context of other studies.
Recommended Citation
David M. Flores, James T. Richardson & Mara L. Merlino,
Examining the Effects of the Daubert Trilogy on Expert Evidence Practices in Federal Civil Court: An Empirical Analysis,
34
S. Ill. U. L.J.
533
(2010).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol34/iss3/2