The U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Daubert decision (Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)), established an empirical standard of evidentiary reliability to ensure that only those expert opinions predicated upon demonstrably valid knowledge would make their way into evidence.
Evaluating the Experts
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark <i>Daubert</i> decision (<i>Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)), established an empirical standard of evidentiary reliability to ensure that only those expert opinions predicated upon demonstrably valid knowledge would make their way into evidence. Daubert further instructed that when the expert testimony comes from a discipline that purports to be scientific, as does psychology, evidentiary reliability translates to a standard of scientific validity. This article examines the peer-review/publication process and explores its value and its limitations as a measure of evidentiary reliability.
By
Law.com Staff
This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
