The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion
In 'Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael' the United States Supreme Court put forward two important principles for the control of expert evidence. The first is that the judge's gatekeeping responsibility to insure minimum reliability of expert testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 70...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | California law review 2002-01, Vol.90 (1), p.1-56 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 56 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | California law review |
| container_volume | 90 |
| creator | Risinger, D. Michael Saks, Michael J. Thompson, William C. Rosenthal, Robert |
| description | In 'Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael' the United States Supreme Court put forward two important principles for the control of expert evidence. The first is that the judge's gatekeeping responsibility to insure minimum reliability of expert testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. applies to all proffered expert testimony, not just the explicit products of "science." The second, less explicit but no less important, is that this judgment must be made concerning the "task at hand," instead of globally in regard to the average dependability of a broadly defined area of expertise. In other words, reliability cannot be judged "as drafted," but must be judged only specifically "as applied." The Court repeatedly made this clear in 'Kumho Tire', perhaps best when it said. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2307/3481305 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_204117441</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><informt_id>10.3316/informit.T2024070800016601743276689</informt_id><jstor_id>3481305</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3481305</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-324d254a63246cbad89d518f6ae7c281ea2cae4a4f532318ef9a3a278679d85e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kF1LIzEUhoOsYFfFvxBkwatZ8zWZzN6JVisrKFi9DWnmpE3pTMZkRtZ_b9oKXu3V-XrO-8KL0Bklvxkn1SUXinJSHqAJrQUrZCnYDzQhhKiCMkaP0M-U1nmkoiITNM5XgG_MuIA4XP4d21XA922_8dYMPnQJB4cfFwniO0Q8dQ7skLDv8G2I0CVv8bP10Fn4g2e-aaDDTzEsNtDuHqf_-szvhLDpGvw8LpeQtuMJOnRmk-D0qx6jl9vp_HpWPDze3V9fPRSW13QoOBMNK4WRuZF2YRpVNyVVThqoLFMUDLMGhBGu5IxTBa423LBKyapuVAn8GJ3vdfsY3sbsrddhjF221IwISishaIYu9pCNIaUITvfRtyZ-aEr0NlL9FWkmX_dkbP2gzdKnftAJTLQr7TsXdusQl7oJfvvMOZXfhzkjTJCKqG34UpLszlklpaqz8K-98DoNIf7X_xPVUo_G</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>204117441</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Risinger, D. Michael ; Saks, Michael J. ; Thompson, William C. ; Rosenthal, Robert</creator><creatorcontrib>Risinger, D. Michael ; Saks, Michael J. ; Thompson, William C. ; Rosenthal, Robert</creatorcontrib><description>In 'Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael' the United States Supreme Court put forward two important principles for the control of expert evidence. The first is that the judge's gatekeeping responsibility to insure minimum reliability of expert testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. applies to all proffered expert testimony, not just the explicit products of "science." The second, less explicit but no less important, is that this judgment must be made concerning the "task at hand," instead of globally in regard to the average dependability of a broadly defined area of expertise. In other words, reliability cannot be judged "as drafted," but must be judged only specifically "as applied." The Court repeatedly made this clear in 'Kumho Tire', perhaps best when it said.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-1221</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1942-6542</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/3481305</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CLARDJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berkeley CA United States of America: School of Law, University of California, Berkeley</publisher><subject>Admissible evidence ; Awareness ; Defendants ; Empirical evidence ; Evidence ; Expert witness testimony ; Federal court decisions ; Forensic evidence ; Forensic laboratories ; Forensic sciences ; Handwriting ; Honesty ; Inspection reports ; Observational research ; Perception ; Police ; Psychology ; Scientific observation</subject><ispartof>California law review, 2002-01, Vol.90 (1), p.1-56</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2002 California Law Review, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright University of California Press Jan 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-324d254a63246cbad89d518f6ae7c281ea2cae4a4f532318ef9a3a278679d85e3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3481305$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3481305$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Risinger, D. Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saks, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, William C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenthal, Robert</creatorcontrib><title>The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion</title><title>California law review</title><description>In 'Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael' the United States Supreme Court put forward two important principles for the control of expert evidence. The first is that the judge's gatekeeping responsibility to insure minimum reliability of expert testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. applies to all proffered expert testimony, not just the explicit products of "science." The second, less explicit but no less important, is that this judgment must be made concerning the "task at hand," instead of globally in regard to the average dependability of a broadly defined area of expertise. In other words, reliability cannot be judged "as drafted," but must be judged only specifically "as applied." The Court repeatedly made this clear in 'Kumho Tire', perhaps best when it said.</description><subject>Admissible evidence</subject><subject>Awareness</subject><subject>Defendants</subject><subject>Empirical evidence</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Expert witness testimony</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Forensic evidence</subject><subject>Forensic laboratories</subject><subject>Forensic sciences</subject><subject>Handwriting</subject><subject>Honesty</subject><subject>Inspection reports</subject><subject>Observational research</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Police</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Scientific observation</subject><issn>0008-1221</issn><issn>1942-6542</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kF1LIzEUhoOsYFfFvxBkwatZ8zWZzN6JVisrKFi9DWnmpE3pTMZkRtZ_b9oKXu3V-XrO-8KL0Bklvxkn1SUXinJSHqAJrQUrZCnYDzQhhKiCMkaP0M-U1nmkoiITNM5XgG_MuIA4XP4d21XA922_8dYMPnQJB4cfFwniO0Q8dQ7skLDv8G2I0CVv8bP10Fn4g2e-aaDDTzEsNtDuHqf_-szvhLDpGvw8LpeQtuMJOnRmk-D0qx6jl9vp_HpWPDze3V9fPRSW13QoOBMNK4WRuZF2YRpVNyVVThqoLFMUDLMGhBGu5IxTBa423LBKyapuVAn8GJ3vdfsY3sbsrddhjF221IwISishaIYu9pCNIaUITvfRtyZ-aEr0NlL9FWkmX_dkbP2gzdKnftAJTLQr7TsXdusQl7oJfvvMOZXfhzkjTJCKqG34UpLszlklpaqz8K-98DoNIf7X_xPVUo_G</recordid><startdate>20020101</startdate><enddate>20020101</enddate><creator>Risinger, D. Michael</creator><creator>Saks, Michael J.</creator><creator>Thompson, William C.</creator><creator>Rosenthal, Robert</creator><general>School of Law, University of California, Berkeley</general><general>California Law Review Inc</general><general>University of California - Berkeley, School of Law</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020101</creationdate><title>The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion</title><author>Risinger, D. Michael ; Saks, Michael J. ; Thompson, William C. ; Rosenthal, Robert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-324d254a63246cbad89d518f6ae7c281ea2cae4a4f532318ef9a3a278679d85e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Admissible evidence</topic><topic>Awareness</topic><topic>Defendants</topic><topic>Empirical evidence</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Expert witness testimony</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Forensic evidence</topic><topic>Forensic laboratories</topic><topic>Forensic sciences</topic><topic>Handwriting</topic><topic>Honesty</topic><topic>Inspection reports</topic><topic>Observational research</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Police</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Scientific observation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Risinger, D. Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saks, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, William C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenthal, Robert</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>California law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Risinger, D. Michael</au><au>Saks, Michael J.</au><au>Thompson, William C.</au><au>Rosenthal, Robert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion</atitle><jtitle>California law review</jtitle><date>2002-01-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>90</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>56</epage><pages>1-56</pages><issn>0008-1221</issn><eissn>1942-6542</eissn><coden>CLARDJ</coden><abstract>In 'Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael' the United States Supreme Court put forward two important principles for the control of expert evidence. The first is that the judge's gatekeeping responsibility to insure minimum reliability of expert testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. applies to all proffered expert testimony, not just the explicit products of "science." The second, less explicit but no less important, is that this judgment must be made concerning the "task at hand," instead of globally in regard to the average dependability of a broadly defined area of expertise. In other words, reliability cannot be judged "as drafted," but must be judged only specifically "as applied." The Court repeatedly made this clear in 'Kumho Tire', perhaps best when it said.</abstract><cop>Berkeley CA United States of America</cop><pub>School of Law, University of California, Berkeley</pub><doi>10.2307/3481305</doi><tpages>56</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0008-1221 |
| ispartof | California law review, 2002-01, Vol.90 (1), p.1-56 |
| issn | 0008-1221 1942-6542 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_204117441 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
| subjects | Admissible evidence Awareness Defendants Empirical evidence Evidence Expert witness testimony Federal court decisions Forensic evidence Forensic laboratories Forensic sciences Handwriting Honesty Inspection reports Observational research Perception Police Psychology Scientific observation |
| title | The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T22%3A56%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Daubert/Kumho%20Implications%20of%20Observer%20Effects%20in%20Forensic%20Science:%20Hidden%20Problems%20of%20Expectation%20and%20Suggestion&rft.jtitle=California%20law%20review&rft.au=Risinger,%20D.%20Michael&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=56&rft.pages=1-56&rft.issn=0008-1221&rft.eissn=1942-6542&rft.coden=CLARDJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/3481305&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3481305%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=204117441&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_informt_id=10.3316/informit.T2024070800016601743276689&rft_jstor_id=3481305&rfr_iscdi=true |