Judging expert testimony: from verbal formalism to practical advice

• Autores: Susan Haack
• Localización: Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorio, ISSN-e 2604-6202, Nº. 1, 2020, págs. 13-30
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita
• Resumen

  • Appraising the worth of others’ testimony is always complex; appraising the worth of expert testimony is even harder; appraising the worth of expert testimony in a legal context is harder yet. Legal efforts to assess the reliability of expert testimony —I’ll focus on evolving U.S.

    law governing the admissibility of such testimony— seem far from adequate, offering little effective practical guidance. My purpose in this paper is to think through what might be done to offer courts more real, operational help. The first step is to explain why the legal formulae that have evolved over the years may seem reassuring, but aren’t really of much practical use. The next is to suggest that we might do better not by amending evidentiary rules but by helping judges and attorneys understand what questions they should ask about expert evidence. I focus here on (i) epidemiological testimony, and (ii) the process of peer review.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Armstrong, D., 2006, May 15: «How the New England Journal missed warning signs on Vioxx: Medical weekly waited years to report flaws in article...
  • Beecher-Monas, E., 2009: «Reality bites: The illusion of science in bite-mark evidence», in Cardozo Law Review, 30 (4): 1369-1410.
  • Capon, R., 2016: «The performance of the Italian civil justice system: An empirical assessment», in Italian Law Journal, 2 (1): 15-31.
  • Clifford, W.K., 1947: «The ethics of belief» (1877), in The ethics of belief and other essays (eds. Stephen, L., & Pollock, F). London:...
  • Federal Judicial Center, 1994: Reference manual on scientific evidence. Washington, D.C.
  • Federal Judicial Center 2000: Reference manual on scientific evidence. Washington, D.C.
  • Federal Judicial Center2011: Reference manual on scientific evidence. Washington, D.C.
  • Friedman, L. M., 2010: «Expert testimony, its abuse and reformation», in Yale Law Journal, 19 (4): 247-257.
  • Haack, S., 2005: «Trial and error: The Supreme Court’s philosophy of science», in American Journal of Public Health, 95 (Supplement 1): S66-73....
  • Haack, S. 2007: «Peer review and publication: Lessons for lawyers», in Stetson Law Review, 36 (3): 789-819. Reprinted in Haack, 2014a: 156-79.
  • Haack, S. 2008: «What’s wrong with litigation-driven science? An essay in legal epistemology», in Seton Hall Law Review, 38 (3): 1053-83....
  • Haack, S. 2010:«Federal philosophy of science: A deconstruction—and a reconstruction», in NYU Journal of Law and Liberty, 5 (2): 394-435....
  • Haack, S. 2014a: «Credulity and circumspection: Epistemological character and the ethics of belief», in Proceedings of the American Catholic...
  • Haack, S. 2014b: «Correlation and causation: The “Bradford Hill Criteria” in epidemiological, legal, and epistemological perspective», in...
  • Haack, S. 2014c: Evidence matters: Science, truth, and proof in the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Haack, S. 2016: «Mind the analytical gap! Tracing a fault line in Daubert», in Wayne Law Review, 61 (3): 653-90.
  • Haack, S. 2018: «In the epistemological spotlight: Epidemiological evidence in toxic torts», in Memoria XV Congreso Panameño de Derecho Procesal:...
  • Hal, N., 2016, September 1: «Fla. high court weighs changes to expert witness standard», in Law360: https://www.law360.com/articles/790136/fla-high-court-weighs-changes-to-expert-witness-standard.
  • Haug, C., 2015, December 17: «Peer-Review fraud—hacking the scientific publication process», in New England Journal of Medicine, 373 (25):...
  • Henneckens, C. H., et al., 1996: «Self-Reported breast implants and connective tissue diseases in female health professionals: A retrospective...
  • Hill, A.B., 1965: «The environment and disease: Association or causation? », in Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58 (5): 295-300.
  • Himes, C. F., 1893, « The scientific expert in forensic procedure», in Journal of the Franklin Institute, 135 (6): 407-436.
  • McGinty, J. C., 2018, May 5: «Shifting standards cloud autism’s progress», in Wall Street Journal: https:// www.wsj.com/articles/on-autism-shifting-u-s-standards-cloud-the-number-of-cases-1525446011.
  • National Research Council, 2009: Strengthening the forensic sciences in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.
  • Wakefield, A., et al., 1998, February 19: «Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder...