Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting Daubert: Judicial Gatekeeping and Expert Ethics in Court

  • Published:
Psychological Injury and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article calls for pragmatic modifications to legal practices for the admissibility of scientific evidence, including forensic psychological science. We submit that Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) and the other two cases in the U.S. Supreme Court trilogy on expert evidence have largely failed to accomplish their gatekeeping goals to assure the reliability of scientific evidence admitted in court. Reliability refers to validity in psychological terms. Part of the problem with Daubert’s application in court is the gatekeeping function that it ascribes to judges. Most Daubert admissibility challenges are rejected by judges, who might lack the requisite scientific expertise to make informed decisions; educating judges on science might not be an adequate solution. Like others who have put forth the idea, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 706, we suggest that court-appointed impartial experts can help judges to adjudicate competing claims on admissibility. We further recommend that an expert witness ethics code sworn to in legal proceedings should be mandatory in all jurisdictions. The journal Psychological Injury and Law calls for comments and further recommendations on modifying Daubert admissibility challenges and procedures in civil and criminal cases to develop best practices to mitigate adversarial allegiance and other unconscious biases in expert decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allsop, J. L. B. (2016). Harmonized expert witness code of conduct. In Expert evidence practice note (GNP-EXPT); Annexure A. Federal Court of Australia.

  • American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. (2005). Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry. Author.

  • American Medical Association. (2017). Code of medical ethics. Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved July 18, 2021, from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf

  • Beltrani, A., Reed, A. L., Zapf, P. A., & Otto, R. K. O. (2018). Is hindsight really 20/20?: The impact of outcome information on decision making. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2018.1505790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berdy, C., & Snow, B. (2021, March 17). Solving the problem of Daubert’s “Shaky but admissible evidence”: An amendment to federal rules of evidence 702 may be forthcoming. Retrieved April 17, 2021, from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/solving-the-problem-of-daubert-s-shaky-2676131/

  • Butt, A. E. (2018). Concurrent expert evidence in U.S. toxic harms cases and civil cases more generally: Is there a proper role for hot tubbing. Houston Journal of International Law, 40(1), 1–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champagne, A., Eastering, D., Shuman, D. W., Tomkins, A., & Whitaker, E. (2001). Are court-appointed experts the solution to the problems of expert testimony? Judicature, 84(4), 178–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, B. H. (2016). Rule 706: An underutilized tool to be used when partisan experts become “hired guns.” Villanova Law Review, 60(5). https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol60/iss5/3. Accessed 9 July 2021.

  • Chorn, J. A., & Kovera, M. B. (2019). Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 43(6), 542–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cicchini, M. D. (2021). The Daubert double standard. Michigan State Law Review. Retrieved April 17, 2021, from https://ssm.com/abstract=3787772

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 509 U.S. 579.

  • DeMatteo, D., Fischel, S., & Tansey, A. (2020). Expert evidence: The (unfulfilled) promise of Daubert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619894336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domitrovich, S. (2016). Fulfilling Daubert’s gatekeeping mandate through court-appointed experts. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106(1), 35–48. Retrieved July 9, 2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26402865

  • Dror, I. E. (2020). Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: Six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Analytical Chemistry, 92, 7998–8004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dror, I. E., Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., & Zapf, P. A. (2018). When expert decision making goes wrong: Consensus, bias, the role of experts, and accuracy. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 162–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmond, G. (2018). Re-assessing reliability. In P. Roberts & M. Stockdale (Eds.), Forensic science evidence and expert witness testimony: Reliability through reform (pp. 71–105). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788111034

  • Edmond, G. (2020). Forensic science and the myth of adversarial testing. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(2), 146–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2019.1689786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foote, W. E., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Young, G. (2020). Civil forensic evaluation in psychological injury and law: Legal, professional, and ethical considerations. Psychological Injury and Law, 13(4), 327–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freckelton, I., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Horan, J., & McKimmie, B. (2016). Expert evidence and criminal jury trials. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye v. United States, 293 F.1013, 34 ALR 145 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

  • Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012899030937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).

  • Greene, E., & Gordon, N. (2016). Can the “hot tub” enhance jurors’ understanding and use of expert testimony? Wyoming Law Review, 16 (2). https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlr/vol16/iss2/6. Accessed 2 September 2021.

  • Krauss, D. A., Gongola, J., Scurich, N., & Busch, B. (2018). Mental state at time of offense in the hot tub: An empirical examination of concurrent expert testimony in an insanity case. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(3), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

  • Lambert, E., & Oytana, Y. (2019). Optimal resort to court-appointed experts. Review of Law and Economics, 15(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2016-0029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitin, T. (2021). Doubt no more. Columbia Law Review, 121(4), 1289–1236. https://doi.org/10.2307/27021388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAuliff, B. D., & Groscup, J. L. (2009). Daubert and psychological science in court: Judging validity from the bench, bar, and jury box. In J. L. Skeem, K. S. Douglas, & S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversy (pp. 26–52). Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Legal Publishing Ltd. (2021). Federal Rules of Evidence; 2021 Edition. Author.

  • Mueller, C. B., Kirkpatrick, L. C., & Richter, L. (2018). §7.7 Reliability Standard (Daubert, Frye). George Washington University Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2018–71. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3277067. Accessed 11 August 2021.

  • Murrie, D., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, T. M. S., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619888860

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nir, E., & Liu, S. (2021). What do gatekeepers see? Perceptions and evaluations of scientific evidence among state court judges. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society, 22(1), 20–25. Retrieved April 17, 2021, from https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/21975-what-do-the-gatekeepers-see-perceptions-and-evaluations-of-scientific-evidence-among-state-court-judges

  • Perillo, J. T., Perillo, A. D., Despodova, N. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2021). Testing the waters: An investigation of the impact of hot tubbing on experts from referral through testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 45(3), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. A. (2016). What is obviously wrong with the federal judiciary, yet eminently curable: Part I. Green Bag, 19(2D), 187–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2016). Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Executive Office of the US President. Retrieved July 9, 2021, from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf

  • Roberts, P., & Stockdale, M. (2018). Introduction: Forensic science, evidential reliability and institutional reform. In P. Roberts & M. Stockdale (Eds.), Forensic science evidence and expert witness testimony: Reliability through reform (pp. 1–26). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788111034

  • Rubinfeld, D. L., & Cecil, J. S. (2018). Scientists as experts serving the court. Daedelus, 147(4), 152–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Mohan, 2 S.C.R. 9 (1994).

  • Sanders, J. (2007). Expert witness ethics. Fordham Law Review, 76(3), 1539. Retrieved May 19, 2021, from http://ir.lawnet.edu/flr/vol76/iss3/10

  • Simon, D., Ahn, M., Stenstrom, D. M., & Read, S. J. (2020). The adversarial mindset. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(3), 353–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. L., Kannemeyer, M., Adams, E., Van Nguyen, V., Munshaw, R., & Burr, W. S. (2020). Comparing jury focus and comprehension of expert evidence between adversarial and court-appointed models in Canadian criminal court context. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 53(2), 43–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00085030.2020.1748284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tager, E. M., Woods, C. A., Goeke, R. R., Jones, D. E., Summers, C. J., Sostrin, M. J., & Klein, J. S. (2020). Admissibility of expert testimony: Manageable guidance for judicial gatekeeping. Washington Legal Foundation.

  • Wang, Z. (2016). An alternative to the adversarial: Studies on challenges of court-appointed experts. Journal of Forensic Scientific Medicine, 2(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.4103/2349-5014.170618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2014). Malingering, feigning, and response bias in psychiatric/psychological injury—Implications for practice and court. Springer Science + Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2017). Revising the American Psychological Association ethics code. Springer International Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2020). Toward a unified health work ethics code. Ethics, Medicine, and Public Health, 15, 100590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2020.100590

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada

    Gerald Young

  2. Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

    Jane Goodman-Delahunty

Authors
  1. Gerald Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jane Goodman-Delahunty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerald Young.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Young, G., Goodman-Delahunty, J. Revisiting Daubert: Judicial Gatekeeping and Expert Ethics in Court. Psychol. Inj. and Law 14, 304–315 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09428-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09428-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation