Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), the Supreme Court entrusted district courts with the primary responsibility for applying the Daubert standard for admission of expert testimony. Joiner held that appellate courts could reverse a decision to exclude or admit expert testimony only if the district court abused its discretion. Id. at 143.
Since Joiner was decided, appellate courts have strictly applied its abuse of discretion standard. In the past nine years, federal appellate courts have reversed only 28 decisions to admit or exclude scientific expert testimony on grounds that the district court substantively misapplied the Daubert standard. Thus, a party appealing a decision either to exclude or admit scientific expert testimony faces an uphill battle.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.