Expert testimony in psychology: Ramifications of supreme court decision in kumho tire co., ltd. V. Carmichael
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Behavior 10 (2):185 – 193 (2000)
A recent Supreme Court decision, Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael (March 23, 1999), may have substantial impact on psychological expert testimony. Previous criteria for admissibility of scientific expert testimony now apply broadly to expert testimony, not just testimony narrowly grounded in scientific evidence. Judges will determine the relevance and reliability of all expert testimony, including that based on clinical experience or training. Admissible testimony will either satisfy the criteria established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) or meet similarly rigorous standards judged appropriate to the particular field involved. Because psychological testimony has varied in its evidentiary basis, sometimes relying on science and otherwise on clinical training or experience, court decisions will gradually determine the precedent for its admissibility. We also discuss long-term consequences for the credibility of psychological expert testimony and the relation between psychology and law.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jennifer Lackey (2006). The Nature of Testimony. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (2):177–197.
Tony Ward (2006). English Law's Epistemology of Expert Testimony. Journal of Law and Society 33 (4):572-595.
Bruce D. Sales & Leonore Simon (1993). Institutional Constraints on the Ethics of Expert Testimony. Ethics and Behavior 3 (3 & 4):231 – 249.
Richard Scheines, Expert Statistical Testimony and Epidemiological Evidence: The Toxic Effects of Lead Exposure on Children.
David M. Godden & Douglas Walton (2006). Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
Jennifer Mnookin, Idealizing Science and Demonizing Experts: An Intellectual History of Expert Evidence.
Douglas Walton & David Godden (2006). Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
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 downloads4 ( #259,127 of 1,102,974 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #297,509 of 1,102,974 )
How can I increase my downloads?