The Volokh Conspiracy has a great set of posts on expert witnesses. "Co-conspirator" David Bernstein holds the opinion that federal judges are not following Daubert's gatekeeping requirement and allowing expert testimony that does not comply with the federal rule of evidence. 

There are two schools of thought on admissibility of expert witness testimony.  The first school of thought is that judges should act as gatekeepers and perhaps err on the side of caution to exclude unsubstantiated opinions.  The second school of thought is that a presumption of admissibility should exist and defects generally go to weight not admissibility.

Both schools of thought are represented in the cases, main post and comments.  Read for yourself.

Personally, I think Bernstein is correct.  As long as the number of experts is limited to one per side per subject, there is a high risk of junk science sneaking through a fast talking mumbo jumbo expert that is not readily defeated by cross examination. 

Posted by Joseph R. McFaul on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 00:00 Comments Closed (0)

View Weblog Archive