Explaining the tension between the supreme court's embrace of validity as the Touchstone of admissibility of expert testimony and lower courts' (seeming) rejection of same
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Episteme 5 (3):pp. 329-342 (2008)
By lopsided majorities, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of cases, persistently commanded the lower courts to condition the admission of proffered expert testimony on the demonstrated validity of the proponents’ claims of expertise. In at least one broad area – the so-called forensic sciences – the courts below have largely evaded the Supreme Court's holdings. This paper aims to try to explain this massive defiance by the lower courts in terms of social epistemology
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
William D. Araiza, Constitutional Rules and Institutional Roles: The Fate of the Equal Protection Class of One and What It Means for Congressional Power to Enforce Constitutional Rights.
Tony Ward (2006). English Law's Epistemology of Expert Testimony. Journal of Law and Society 33 (4):572-595.
Charles T. Kotuby Jr, Private International Law Before the United States Supreme Court: Recent Terms in Review.
Joseph Seiner, The Trouble with Twombly: A Proposed Pleading Standard for Employment Discrimination Cases.
Michael L. Eber, When the Dissent Creates the Law: Cross-Cutting Majorities and the Prediction Model of Precedent.
Susan Haack (2008). What's Wrong with Litigation-Driven Science? An Essay in Legal Epistemology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 32:20-35.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #162,810 of 1,088,396 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?