Daubert Standard - Position Paper



Daubert Standard - Position Paper

Introduction

The Daubert standard is an officially authorized model commenced in the Supreme Court case of “Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals” in 1993. This case was about the permissibility of expert witness' testimony throughout official procedures and hearings. In the Daubert Standard, the Supreme Court instructed federal trial judges to be the “gatekeepers” of methodical verification. Trial judges should the assess submitted expert witness to establish whether their evidence is both 'reliable' and 'relevant' that means a two-branched investigation of permissibility. The relevance of a proof depicts whether the expert's testimony “fits” the truth of the case. The expert should derive his findings utilizing the scientific methodology for making the testimony reliable.

Expert testimony can be somewhat strong and somewhat deceptive. For instance, when expert evidence and testimony are demonstrated, jurors and judges unknown with the testimony and with lack of classiness to identify errors and mistakes in scientific testimony are frequently enforced to rely in the viewpoints of expert evidence, someone who is generally supposed as having the critical knowledge and proficiency to converse on the argued concern. Consequently, the testimony can be comprehended by the juror or judge as believable since it is presented by an expert's evidence (Lee, 2006).

On the other hand, the expert testimony can be deceptive, as well. In the arena of scientific methodology, where models and theories are argued and changed crosswise time, authorities usually hold different viewpoints regarding a concern. Thus, the arrangement of an expert or multiple experts sustaining single side in a case will possibly influence the jurors and / or judge to support that arrangement for lack of a negation expert. Furthermore, the arrangement of scientific testimony frequently can be intricate and prolonged. It would not be irrational to presume that a judge or ...