NOTE: THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES IN THE 2016 SYLLABUS.
Scientific Evidence Seminar
Fall 2016
Mr. Sanders
The purpose of this seminar is to offer an overview of topics in scientific evidence with a
focus on mass and toxic torts. The primary impetus for the seminar is the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.
2786 (1993). In that case the Court determined that the rule in Frye v. United States, 293 F.
1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) that established the “general acceptance” test of the admissibility of
scientific evidence did not survive the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975. The
Daubert court then sketched out the factors trial courts might consider in determining
admissibility. In the opinion of many, the Daubert case has opened a new period in the
relationship between science and law. The district court judges have been invited to take a much
more active role in determining admissibility, an invitation that a number of courts have already
accepted. The Daubert opinion also has caused people to reconsider how expert testimony
should be presented to courts. Although Daubert first emerged and took root in mass tort cases
(Daubert concerns the drug Bendectin), its reach has steadily expanded into nearly every area of
expert witnessing.
Each person in the seminar has two obligations: a) to read the materials and participate in
class, and b) to write a term paper. As to the first obligation, there is LOTS of reading. I expect
everyone to have read each week’s material prior to class and to participate in the discussion. If
you think this will not be possible, you should not take the course. The grade in the course will
be based partly on class participation. Grades will be based primarily on the second requirement,
the term paper. You should begin working on this as soon as possible. You should arrange to
speak with me no later than the end of the third week of the semester to discuss possible topics.
I have made assignments for twelve weeks of the seminar. Somewhere around Week 6 or
7 I wish to take out a week or two to talk about term papers. Each person will be asked to make
a short presentation (15 minutes) about their research topic.
Following is the reading list for the course. If my past experience is any indication, we
will not finish the entire syllabus. We will do what we can.
PART I: LAW
WEEK 1: From Frye to Daubert
1.
2.
3.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
Faigman, David L. Elise Porter and Michael J. Saks. Check Your Crystal Ball at the
Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring the Past, Understanding the Present, and Worrying
About the Future of Scientific Evidence, 15 Cardozo Law Review 1799 (1994).
Also Worth Reading:
a.
In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 611 F. Supp. 1223 (E.D. N.Y.
1985), aff'd 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied sum nom Lombardi v. Dow
Chemical Co. 487 U.S. 1234 (1988).
b.
Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp. 939 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir. 1991).
c.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)
d.
Green, Michael D., Expert Witnesses and Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic
Substances Litigation: The Legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin Litigation, 86
Northwestern University Law Review 643 (1992).
e.
Black, Bert, Francisco Ayala and Carol Saffran-Brinks. Science and the Law in
the Wake of Daubert: A New Search for Scientific Knowledge. 72 Texas Law
Review 715 (1994)
f.
Capra, Daniel J., The Daubert Puzzle, 32 Georgia L. Rev. 699 (1998) (professor
Capra was the Reporter to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the
Federal Rules of Evidence and discusses proposed rule wording changes in light
of Daubert)
g.
Berger, Margaret and Aaron Twerski, Uncertainty and Informed Choice:
Unmasking Daubert, 104 Mich. L. Rev. 257 (2005)
h.
David E. Bernstein, Learning the Wrong Lessons From “An American Tragedy”:
A Critique of the Berger-Twerski Informed Choice Proposal, 104 Mich. L. Rev.
1961 (2006).
i.
Jurs, Andrew and Scott DeVito, The Stricter Standard: An Empirical Assessment
of Daubert’s Effect on Civil Defendants, 62 Cath. U. L. Rev. 675 (2013).
WEEK 2: Joiner and Kumho Tire: Parts Two and Three of the Daubert Revolution
1.
Standard of Review and the method conclusion puzzle.
a.
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717 (3rd Cir., 1994) (pp. 741-50)
b.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 118 S.Ct. 512, 516 (1997)
2.
The Scope of Daubert
a.
Carmichael v. Samyang Tires, Inc., 131 F.3d 1433(11th Cir. 1997), cer’t granted
by Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 118 S.Ct. 2339 (1998).
b.
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).
3.
Faigman, David L., The Daubert Revolution and the Birth of Modernity: Managing
Scientific Evidence in the Age of Science, 46 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 893 (2013).
Also Worth Reading:
a.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. V. Rios, 143 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. App. 2004)(a Texas
case with facts similar to Kuhmo Tire)
b.
Risinger, D. Michael, Defining the “Task at Hand”: Non-Science Forensic
Science after Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 57 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 767
(2000).
c.
Sanders, Joseph, Kumho and How We Know, 64-SUM Law & Contemp. Probs.
373 (2001).
d.
FAIGMAN, ET AL., MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (2012). Chapter 1: Admissibility
of Scientific Evidence. (This long chapter is a resource. You may wish to refer to
it to get a better overview of things.)
WEEK 3: Time Out for Science
1.
2.
FAIGMAN, ET AL., MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: STUDENT EDITION (2012). Chapter 5:
Scientific Method
FAIGMAN, ET AL., MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: STUDENT EDITION (2012). Chapter 6
Part II.: Statistical Proof
WEEK 4: Where are the States
1
The Texas Position (Civil)
a.
Du Pont v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (adopting Daubert)
b.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997)
c.
Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998)
(paralleling Kumho)
d.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez, 204 S.W.3d 797 (2006)
e.
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Garza, 347 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2011).
2.
The Texas Position (Criminal)
a.
Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)
b.
State v. Melcher, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (read majority opinion)
Other states
a.
Castillo v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 854 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 2003) (a middle
ground)
b.
Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 7 N.Y.3d 434, 857 N.E.2d 1114, 824 N.Y.S.2d 584
(2006) (Frye plus).
3.
Also Worth Reading:
a.
People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 882 P.2d 321 (1994)
(sticking with Frye)
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
f.
g.
h.
Christian v. Gray, 65 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2003) (in which Oklahoma adopts Daubert).
Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215, 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001) (Ditto for
Nebraska).
Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 270 Kan. 443, 14 P.3d 1170 (2000) (in
which Kansas abandons all reliability tests for some expert evidence–not unlike
Logerquist).
Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 199 Ill.2d 63, 767 N.E.2d 314,
262 Ill.Dec. 854 (2002). (in which Illinois sticks with a strict version of Frye.)
Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (retrograde extrapolation)
Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So.2d 543 (Fla. 2007) (In which Florida passes on an
opportunity to retreat from Frye– now superceded by statute.)
Alice B. Lustre, Post-Daubert Standards for Admissibility of Scientific and other
Expert Evidence in State Courts. 90 A.L.R.5th 453
John M. Conley and Scott W. Gaylord, Scientific Evidence in the State Courts, 44
NO. 4 Judges' J. 6 (2005) (now a bit out of date).
WEEK 5: The Proof of Specific Causation
1.
2.
3.
4.
A Phillip Dawid, David L Faigman and Stephen E. Fienberg. Fitting Science Into Legal
Contexts: Assessing Effects of Causes or Causes of Effects? 43 Sociological Methods
and Research 359 (2014).
Guinn v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, 602 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2010) (Seroquel and
diabetes) (excluded).
Bowen v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Inc., 2005 WL 1952859 Del.Super.,2005.
Appeal dismissed and judgment affirmed Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
906 A.2d 787 (Del Supr. 2006). (Benlate and birth defects). (just read the unpublished
opinion)
Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc., 969 F.Supp.2d 101 (D.Mass. 2013).
Also Worth Reading:
a.
Kannankeril v. Terminix International, Inc., 128 F.3d 802 (3d Cir. 1997)
b.
Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 1999).
c.
Heller v. Shaw, 167 F.3d 146 (3rd Cir. 1999) (an early Becker opinion)
d.
Newton v. Roche Laboratories, Inc., 243 F.Supp.2d 672 (W.D.Tex. 2002)
(Accutane and schizophrenia) (excluded)
e.
Perkins v. Origin Medsystems, Inc., 299 F.Supp. 2d 45 (D. Conn. 2004) (Surgical
fastening device) (admitted)
f.
McClain v. Metabolife International, 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) (ephedra)
g.
Best v. Lowes Home Centers, Inc., 563 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 2009) (pool chemicals
and loss of smell) (admitted)
h.
Jean Macchiaroli Eggen, Clinical Medical Evidence of Causation in Toxic Tort
Cases: Into the Crucible of Daubert, 38 Hous. L. Rev. 369 (2001).
i.
Joseph Sanders and Julie Machal-Fulks, The Admissibility of Differential
j.
k.
Diagnosis Testimony to Prove Causation in Toxic Tort Cases: The Interplay of
Adjective and Substantive Law, 64, No. 4 L. & Contemp. Probs. 107 (2001).
Edward J Imwinkelried, The Admissibility and Legal Sufficiency of Testimony
About Differential Diagnosis (Etiology): Of Under–and over Estimations, 56
Baylor L. Rev. 391 (2004).
Gary E. Marchant, Genetic Data in Toxic Tort Litigation, 14 J. Law & Policy 7
(2006).
PART II: SCIENCE
A. Toxic Torts.
WEEK 6: Toxicology and Epidemiology
3.
4.
FAIGMAN, ET AL., MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (2012) . Chapter 23: Epidemiology
FAIGMAN, ET AL., MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (2012). Chapter 22: Toxicology
WEEK 7: A Case Study: Silicone Implants
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corp., 33 F.3d. 1116 (9th Cir. 1994).
Meister v. Medical Engineering Corp., 267 F.3d 1123 (D.C.Cir. 2001).
Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 397 F.3d 878 (2005)
Institute of Medicine, Safety of Silicone Breast Implants, Executive Summary, Ch 8-9.
Worthington, Debra L., Merrie Jo Stallard, Joseph M. Price & Peter J. Goss, Hindsight
Bias, Daubert, and the Silicone Breast Implant Litigation, 8 Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law 154 (2002).
Also Worth Reading:
a.
Sanders, Joseph and D.H. Kaye, Expert Advice on Silicone Implants: Hall v.
Baxter Healthcare Corp. 37 Jurimetrics J. 113 (1997)
b.
Lubit, Beverly, The Time Has Come For Doing Science: A Call For Rigorous
Application of Daubert Standards For the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in the
Impending Silicone Breast Implant Litigation, 42 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 147 (1998)
c.
Bernstein, David E., The Breast Implant Fiasco, 87 Calif. L. Rev. 457 (1999) (this
is a lengthy book review of Marcia Angell’s influential book, “Science on Trial.”)
B. Forensic Evidence
WEEK 8: Fingerprint Identification
1.
2.
3.
Saks, Michael and Jonathan J. Koehler, The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic
Identification Science, 309 Science 892 (Aug. 2005)
Zabell, Sandy L., Fingerprint Evidence, 13 J. L. & Pol’y. 143 (2005).
Mnookin, Jennifer, The Courts, the NAS, and the Future of Forensic Science, 75
4.
Brooklyn Law Review 1209 (2010).
Jason M. Tangen & Duncan J. McCarthy, Human Matching Performance of Genuine
Crime Scene Latent Fingerprints, 38 Law & Hum. Behav. 84 (2014) (maybe things aren’t
so bad after all, at least down under).
Also Worth Reading:
a.
Cole, Simon A., Grandfathering Evidence: Fingerprint Admissibility Rulings
From Jednnings to Llera Plaza and Back Again, 41 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1189
(2004).
b.
Cole, Simon A., Toward Evidence-Based Evidence: Supporting Forensic
Knowledge Claims in the Pose-Daubert Era, 43 Tulsa L. Rev. 263 (2007).
c.
Cole, Simon A. Et al., Beyond the Individuality of Fingerprints: A Measure of
Simulated Computer Latent Print Source Attribution Accuracy, 7 Law,
Probability & Risk 165 (2008) (I will discuss Figure 9 in class.)
d.
Koehler, Jonathan J., Fingerprint Error Rates and Proficiency Tests: What They
Are and Why They Matter, 59 Hastings l. J. 1077 (2008).
e.
Garrett, Brandon L. and Peter J. Neufeld, Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and
Wrongful Convictions, 95 Va. L. Rev. 1 (2009).
f.
Mnookin, Jennifer, The Courts, the NAS, and the Future of Forensic Science, 75
Brooklyn Law Review 1209 (2010).
g.
Giannelli, Paul C., Daubert and Forensic Science: The Pitfalls of Law
Enforcement Control of Scientific Research, 2011 U. Ill. L. Rev. 53.
h.
Mnookin, Jennifer, et al., The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic
Sciences, 58 UCLA L. Rev. 725 (2011).
i.
United States v. Harvard, 117 F.SUPP.2d S.D.Ind. 2000)
j.
United States v. Plaza, 179 F.Supp. 492 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (marching up the hill)
k.
United States v. Plaza, 2002 WL 389163 (E.D. Pa. Mar 13, 2002) (marching back
down)
C. Social Science Evidence
WEEK 9: Eyewitness Identification
1.
2.
3.
4.
Clark, Steven E., Blackstone and the Balance of Eyewitness Identification Evidence, 74
Albany L. Rev. 1005 (2010-2011)
Steblay, Nancy K., Maintaining the Reliability of Eyewitness Evidence: After the Lineup,
42 Creighton L Rev, 643 (2008-09).
Wells, Gary, et al., Double-Blind Photo Lineups Using Actual Eyewitnesses: an
Experimental Test of a Sequential versus Simultaneous Lineup Procedure, 39 Law &
Human Behavior 1 (2015).
North Carolina General Statutes § 15A-284.5.2
Also Worth Reading:
a.
Sandra Guerra Thompson, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Reconsidering
Uncorroborated Eyewitness Identification Testimony, 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1487
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
(2008) and Sandra Guerra Thompson, Eyewitness Identifications and State Courts
as Guardians Against Wrongful Conviction, 7 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 603 (2010)
United States v. Smith, 621 F.Supp.2d 1207 (M.D.Ala. 2009) (admitting expert
eyewitness testimony).
Sauer, James. Neil Brewer, Tick Zweck and Nathan Waber, The Effects of
Retention Interval on the Confidence-Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness
Identification, 34 Law and Human Behavior 337 (2010).
Judges, Donald P., Two Cheers for the Department of Justice’s “Eyewitness
Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement,” 53 Ark.L. Rev. 231 (2000).
Steblay, Nancy K. et al., Sequential Lineup Laps and Eyewitness Accuracy, 35
Law & Hum. Behav. 262 (2011)
Note, The Province of the Jurist: Judicial Resistance to Expert Testimony on
Eyewitnesses as Institutional Rivalry, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 2381 (2013).
Nancy K Steblayal., et al., The Eyewitness Post identification Feedback Effect 15
years Later:Theoretical and Policy Implications, 20 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 1
(2014).
PART III. THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM
WEEK 10: Scientific Epistemology
1.
2.
3.
Jennifer L. Mnookin, Expert Evidence, Partisanship, and Epistemic Competence, 73
Brooklyn L. Rev. 1009 (2008).
Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc., 639 F.3d 11, 18 n. 7 (1st Cir. 2011).
(Milward picks up on the idea in Stevens’ dissent in Joiner).
Sanders, Joseph, Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group: Constructing and
Deconstructing Science and Law in Judicial Opinions, 3 Wake Forest J.L. & Pol'y 141
(2013).
Also Worth Reading:
a.
Jasanoff, Sheila, What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science, 32
Jurimetrics 345 (1992).
b.
Farrell, Margaret G. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:
Epistemology and Legal Process. 15 Cardozo Law Review 2183 (1994).
c.
Fuchs, Stephan and Steven Ward, Deconstruction: Making Facts in Science,
Building Cases in Law, 59 American Sociological Review 481 (1994).
d.
Redmayne, Mike, Expert Evidence and Scientific Disagreement, 30 U.C. Davis L.
Rev. 1027 (1997).
e.
Deason, Ellen E. Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses: Scientific Positivism Meets
Bias and Deference, 77 Ore. L. Rev. 59 (1998).
f.
Caudill, David S., & Richard E. Redding, Junk Philosophy of Science?: The
Paradox of Expertise and Interdisciplinarity in Federal Courts, 57 Wash. & Lee.
L. Rev. 685 (2000)
g.
David. S. Caudill and Lewis S. LaRue, Why Judges Applying the Daubert Trilogy
h.
i.
Need to Know About the Social, Institutional, and Rhetorical – and not Just the
Methodiolgical – Aspects of Science, 45 B.C.L.Rev. 1 (2003).
LaRue, Lewis H. And David S. Caudill, A Non-Romantic View of Expert
Testimony, 35 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1 (2004).
For a blow-by-blow deconstructive opinion, see DeLuca v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, 791 F. Supp. 1042 (D.N.J. 1992).
WEEK 11: The Use of Experts
1.
2.
3.
Jurs, Andrew, Expert Prevalence, Persuasion, and Price, (Forthcoming, Indiana Law
Journal, 2015).
Sanders, Joseph, Science, Law, and the Expert Witness, 72-WTR Law and Contemporary
Problems 63 (2009).
Sevier, Justin, The Truth-Justice Tradeoff: Perceptions of Decisional Accuracy and
Procedural Justice in Adversarial and Inquisitorial Legal Systems, 20 Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law 212 (2014).
Also Worth Reading:
a.
Champagne, Anthony, Daniel Shuman, and Elizabeth Whitaker. An Empirical
Examination of the Use of Expert Witnesses in American Courts. 31 Jurimetrics
Journal 375 (1991).
b.
Shuman, Daniel W., Elizabeth Whitaker and Anthony Champagne, An Empirical
Examination of the Use of Expert Witnesses in the Courts-- Part II: A Three City
Study, 34 Jurimetrics Journal 193 (1994).
c.
Brewer, Scott, Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process, 107 Yale L.J.
1535 (1998)
d.
Cecil, Joe S. and Thomas E. Willging. Court Appointed Experts. In Federal
Judicial Center. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. pp. 527-573 (1994).
e.
Pinsky, Lawrence S., The Use of Scientific Peer Review and Colloquia to Assist
Judges in the Admissibility Gatekeeping Mandated by Daubert, 34 Hous. L. Rev.
527 (1997).
f.
Malsch, Marijke and Ian Freckelton, Expert Bias and Partisanship: A
Comparison between Australia and the Netherlands, 11 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L.
42 (2005)
g.
FAIGMAN, ET AL., SCIENCE IN THE LAW (2008). Chapter 3: Ethical Standards of
and Concerning Expert Witnesses.
h.
Gross, Samuel, Expert Evidence. 1991 Wisconsin Law Review 1113.
i.
Robertson, Christopher Tarver, Blind Expertise, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 174 (2010).
j.
Sanders, Joseph, Expert Witness Ethics, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 1539 (2007).
k.
Sonenshein, David and Charles Fitzpatrick, The Problem of Partisan Experts and
The Potential For Reform Through Concurrent Evidence, 32 Rev. Litig. 1 (2013).
WEEK 12: Juries and Judges.
1.
2.
3.
Levettal, Lora M. and Margaret Bull Kovera, The Effectiveness of Opposing Expert
Witnesses For Educating Jurors About Unreliable Expert Evidence, 32 Law & Hum.
Behav. 363 (2008).
Schweitzer, N.J. and Michael J. Saks, Jurors And Scientific Causation: What Don’t They
Know, and What Can Be Done About It?, 52 Jurimetrics J. 433 (2012).
Meixner, John B & Shari Diamond, The Hidden Daubert Factor: How Judges Use Error
Rates in Assessing Scientific Evidence, 2014 Wisconsin Law Review, 1063 (2014).
Also Worth Reading:
a.
Brekke, Nancy, Peter Enko, Gail Clavet and Eric Seelau, Of Juries and CourtAppointed Experts, 15 Law and Human Behavior 451 (1991).
b.
Ellsworth, Phoebe C., Are Twelve Heads Better than One? Law and
Contemporary Problems, Autumn 1989, p. 205.
c.
Vidmar, Neil, The Performance of the American Civil Jury: An Empirical
Perspective, 40 Ariz. L. Rev. 849 (1998).
d.
Krauss, Daniel A. and Bruce D. Sales, The Effects of Clinical and Scientific
Expert Testimony on Juror Decision Making in Capital Sentencing, 7 Psychol.
Pub. Pol’y & L. 267 (2001) (this is a long article. If you do read it, focus on
understanding Figures 1-4.
e.
Ivkovic, Sanja Kutnjak and Valerie Hans, Jurors’ Evaluations of Expert
Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message, 28 Law & Soc. Inquiry 441
(2003).
f.
Sanders, Joseph, The Merits of the Paternalistic Justification for Restrictions on
the Admissibility of Expert Evidence, 33 Seton Hall L. Rev. 101 (2003).
g.
McAuliff, Bradley, Margaret Kivera & Gabriel Nunez, Cah Jurors Recognize
Missing Control Groups, Confounds, and Experimenter Bias in Psychological
Science?, 33 Law and Human Behavior 247 (2009).
h.
Schweitzer, N.J. and Michael J. Saks, The Gatekeeper Effect: The Impact of
Judges; Admissibility Decisions on the Persuasiveness of Expert Testimony, 15
Psychology, Public Policy and Law 1 (2009).
And there is evidence judges have trouble as well.
i.
Kovera, Margaret & Bradley McAuliff, The Effects of Peer Review and Evidence
Quality on Judge Evaluations of Psychological Science: Are Judges Effective
Gatekeepers?, 85 J. Applied Psychol. 574 (2000).
j.
Gatowski, Sophia, et al., Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on
Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert World, 25 Law & Hum. Behav. 433
(2001).