Up ] Daubert Part I ] Daubert Part II ] Daubert Part III ] [ Daubert Part IV ] Daubert Part V ] Daubert Part VI ] Daubert Part VII ] Daubert Part VIII ] Daubert Part IX: Of Additional Interest ] Daubert Part X ] Daubert XI: Popular Culture ] Daubert Part 12: Related Issues ]



IVA. General Commentaries On and Reaction to Daubert
IVB. The Reach of Daubert
IVC. Critiques of Daubert
IVD. Applying Daubert
IVE. Dealing With Daubert: Applying Daubert's Standards to Scientific and Non-Scientific Testimony
IVF. Specific Uses of Daubert
IVF(1). Daubert and DNA
IVF(2). Daubert and Environmental Science
IVF(3). Daubert and Employment Law
IVF(4). Daubert and Civil Rights Litigation
IVF(5). Daubert and Non-Scientific Expert Testimony
IVF(6). Daubert and the Polygraph
IVF(7). Daubert, Repressed Memory Syndrome, and Other Psychological Disorders and Defenses. See also Recovered Memories and False Memory Syndrome
IVF(8). Daubert and Economics
IVF(9). Daubert and Toxic Tort Litigation
IVF(10). Daubert and Handwriting (FRE 901)
IVF(11). Daubert and Breast Implant Litigation
IVF(12). Daubert and Physical Disorders
Daubert and Trial Practice
IVF(14). Daubert and Fingerprint Evidence
IVF(15). Daubert and White Collar Crime
IVF(16). Daubert and Business
IVG. Post-Daubert Decisions
IVH. "Junk Science" and the Scientific Method. See also "Junk Science" and the Legal System
IVI. Popular Articles and Commentary on Daubert and "Junk Science"


IVA. General Commentaries On and Reactions to Daubert

The American Association for the Advancement of Science

Scientific Evidence (commentary by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America)

Young, David G., Flawed Methodologies

Arrowood, Drew, Should Judges Do Philosophy of Science?

Burmeister, DaleR., "Who's the Junkyard Gatekeeper in Michigan?" Daubert One Year Later

Cavanagh, Edward D., Decision Extends Daubert Approach to All Expert Testimony, 71 N.Y.St.B.J. 9 (July/August —).

Charrow, Robert P. and David E. Bernstein, The Evolution of Daubert and Statistical Significance

Chesbro, Kenneth J., Taking Daubert's "Focus" Seriously, 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 1745 (1994)

Crowley, Thomas, Help Me, Mr. Wizard! Can We Really Have "Neutral" Rule 706 Experts?

Daubert v. Merrell Dow: District Courts as Gatekeepers (prepared by the 'Lectric Law Library from a work by Gordon Beggs)

Daubert Continues to Raise the Bar for Science in the Courtroom

The Daubert puzzle, November 6, 1998, 32 Ga. L. Rev. 699 (Spring 1998).

Eckstein, Paul F., and Samuel A. Thumma, Getting scientific evidence admitted: the Daubert hearing, 24 Litig. 21 (Winter 1998).

Edmond, Gary and David Mercer, Trashing "Junk Science", 1998 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 3.

Faigman, David L., Appellate Review of Scientific Evidence Under Daubert and Joiner, 48 Hastings L.J. 969 (June 1997)

Faigman, David., Transcript: Court TV

Francis, F. J., Admissible Scientific Evidence in Court (1993)

Giannelli, Paul C., Daubert in the states, 34 Crim. L. Bull. 154 (March/April 1998).

Gottesman, Michael H., From Barefoot to Daubert to Joiner: triple play or double error? 40 Ariz. L. Rev. 753 (Fall 1998)

Honig, Michael, A Review Standard for Admission of Scientific Evidence, N.Y.L.J., January 12, 1998

Imwinkelreid, Edward J., The Second Prong of the Daubert Test: Disturbing Implications of Two Recent Civil Cases, 33 Crim L. Bull. 570 (November/Decmeber 1997).

Jackson,  Kimberly A., Daubert v. Merrell Dow: Missed Opportunity, 50 Food & Drug L.J. 71 (1995)

Johnson, Lynn R., Stephen N. Six, and Patrick A. Hamilton, Deciphering Daubert, 33 Trial 71 (November 1997)

Kern, Janine M. and Scott R. Swier, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. "gatekeeping" or industry "safekeeping"?, 43 S. D. L. Rev. 566 (1998)

Kesan, Jay P., A Critical Examination of the Post-Daubert Scientific Evidence Landscape

Kolb, Richard, Daubert/Frye: A Sleeping Dog Aroused The impact of Daubert from a defense attorney's perspective

Littleton, Robert W., Supreme Court Dramatically Changes the Rules on Experts, 71 N. Y. St. B.J. 8 (July/August –).

Locke, R. Christopher, Daubert Prompts Heightened Scrutiny of Expert Testimony, Scientific Evidence

Margolin, Ephraim, Daubert: Comments on the Scientific Evidence Symposium, 30 U. C. Davis L. Rev. 1249 (Summer 1997)

Majmudar, Kaushal B., Daubert v. Merrell Dow: A Flexible Approach to the Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence

McLeod, Alma Kelley, Is Frye Dying or Is Daubert Doomed? Determining the Standard of Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Alabama Courts

Meaney, Joseph R., Note: From Frye to Daubert: Is a Pattern Unfolding? 35 Jurimetrics J. 191 (Winter 1995)

Moenssens, Andre A., Preparing for a Daubert Hearing

Motherway, Nicholas J., Daubert and Federal Pre-emption

Parsons, Robert A., More on Science and Courts, The Scientist, February 7, 2000, at 6.

Samelman, Todd, Junk Science in Federal Courts: Judicial Understanding of Scientific Principles, 6 Fla. J. L. & Pol'y 263 (2001).

IVB. The Reach of Daubert

Admissibility of Scientific Evidence Under Daubert

Anderson, William L. and Barry M. Parsons, Daubert's Troublesome Offspring

Bruce, Christopher J., The Role of Expert Evidence

Eckstein, Paul and Samuel A. Thumma, Novel Scientific Evidence in Arizona State Courts

Tager, Evan M., Alan E. Untereiner and Eileen Penner, Bad Faith Experts After Kumho

Quinn, Dennis J., The United States Supreme Court Extends the Holding of Daubert v. Merrell Dow to All Expert Testimony

Schaller, Stephen J., Scientific Evidence, Legal Causation, and the Friction Between Science and Law

Sellers, Joseph M. and Jennifer A. Gundlach, Should We Extend Daubert to Mere Experts?

Sensabaugh, George and D. H. Kaye, Non-Human DNA Evidence, 38 Jurimetric Journal 1-16 (1998).  Also available at http://www.law.asu.edu/homepages/kaye/pubs/dna/98-JJ-nonhuman.htm

Walsh, Joseph T., The Evolving Standards of Admissibility of Scientific Evidence, 2 Best of ABA Sections (Spring 1998).

Washburne, Jake, Expert Testimony Regarding Scientific Evidence

IVC. Critiques of Daubert

Agrimonti, Lisa M., The Limitations of Daubert and Its MIsapplication to Quasi-Scientific Experts, a Two-Year Case Review of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)

Alldrige, Peter, Does C & IT Facilitate the Wrong Things?

Bohan, T. L. and E. J. Heels, The Case Against Daubert (citation generated from literature search)

Gatekeeping from the Bench

Piermattei, William, From Frye to Joiner: The Supreme Court Muddies the Waters of Judicial Reasoning

Rice, Paul, Admissibility of Expert Evidence: Daubert/Kumho and the Gatekeeper Doctrine (from ICLE Online)


IVD. Applying Daubert     hat_lg_wte.gif (5099 bytes)

Arrowood, Drew, Should Judges Do Philosophy of Science?

Bernstein, David J., Junk Science in the United States and in the Commonwealth (abstract only), 21 Yale. Int'l L. J. 123 (1996)

A Blow Against Junk Science (Environmental and Toxic Tort Litigation Update, August 1999)

Cafe L.A.: Supreme Court to Revisit Rules on Expert Testimony

Daubert Again (MAC Newsletters Spring 1997)

Deutsch , Paul M., et al., The Expert's Role as an Educator Continues: Meeting the Demands Under Daubert (Ahab Press, 2003).

The Expert and Daubert

Expert Disqualified (Buckman v Bombardier Corp. 893 F.Supp 547 (E.D.N.C.))

Hagan, Patrick J., and Pamela Winston Bertani, Gatekeeping and the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in the Post Daubert/Joiner/Kumho Tire World

Jasanoff, Sheila, What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science, 77 Judicature 77 (September/October 1993)

Jones, Eileen Gay, Gatekeeping, soothsayers, quacks and magicians: defining science in the courtroom--judging science: scientific knowledge and the federal courts, 25 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 315 (1999)

Louisiana Public Defenders Association (LAPDA) Page: Daubert v. Dow

Mahle, Stephen, Daubert and the Law and Science of Expert Testimony in Business Litigation

Myers, Robert D., Ronald S. Reinstein, and Gordon M. Griller, Complex Scientific Evidence and the Jury, 83 Judicature November/December 1999

Quinn, Eugene R., Jr., Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: The New Hampshire Genesis

Storer, Shelley, Note: The weight versus admissibility dilemma: Daubert's applicability to a method or procedure in a particular case, 1998 U. Ill. L. Rev. 231.

Thornburgh, Dick, Junk science -- the lawyers's ethical responsibilities, 25 Fordham Urb. L.J. 449 (Spring 1998)

Tochtermann, Ronald W., Daubert: A (California) Trial Judge Dissents, 30 U. C. Davis L. Rev. 1013 (Summer 1997)

Trends in the Use of Scientific Evidence to Be Explored

Vazquez, Josue, Assisting the Trier of Fact, 24 Rutgers L. Rec. 2

Vu, Hao-Nhein Q., and Richard A. Tamor, Of Daubert, Elvis and Precedential Relevance: Live Sightings of a Dead Legal Doctrine, 41 UCLA L. Rev. 487 (1993).

Weintraub, Arthur H., Gate keeping from the Bench, Part II

IVE. Dealing With Daubert: Applying Daubert's Standards to Scientific and Non-Scientific Testimony

Annas, George J., Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom: The Death of the Frye Rule, 330 N. Eng. J. Med. April 7, 1994

Apfel, Dov, Expert Testimony Under Daubert

Bernstein, David E., "Non-Scientific" Experts: What Degree of Judicial Scrutiny Should They Face?

Burger, Edward, Better Science by Litigators, Better Management by Courts: Drawing on the Pre-Daubert Experience in the Post-Daubert Era().

Burnette, Jr., Guy E., Fire Scene Investigation: The Daubert Challenge. See also Fire Investigation Not Junk Science and NAFI Daubert Forum

Dealing with Scientific Evidence (Louisiana)

Drukteinis, Albert M., Treating vs. Expert Psychologist as Witness

Eadie, Michelle, Science on Trial

Faigman, David L., Making the Law Safe For Science: A Proposed Rule for the Admission of Expert Testimony, 35 Washburn L.J. 401 (1996)

Farrell, Nancy S., Note: Congressional action to amend Federal Rule of Evidence 702: a mischievous attempt to codify Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 13 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 523 (Spring 1997).

Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Limits the Application of the Daubert Test

Giannelli, Paul C., Expert Qualifications and Testimony, Scientific Testimony: An Online Journal (article is in PDF format)

Gutheil, Thomas C., Testimony, Necromancy and Basic Distrust, 25 Am. Acad. Sci. & L. Newsl. 1 (April 2000).

Important Information of Interest to the Investigator (Michigan Millers v. Benfield, 11th Cir.)

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Testimony Inadmissibile Under Daubert, Court Says

Mealey's Daubert and Expert Admissibility Conference Handbook (1997).

Unterwager, Ralph and Hollida Wakefield, A Paradigm Shift for Expert Witnesses

Wiener, Richard L., Extending Daubert Beyond Scientific Testimony

IVF. Specific Uses of Daubert

IVF(1) Daubert and DNA

Connors, Edward, Thomas Lundregan, Neal Miller and Tom McEwen, Convicted By Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial (NIJ Research Report June 1996)

Deftos, Leonard J., Daubert & Frye: Compounding the Controversy Over the Forensic Use of DNA Testing, 15 Whittier L. Rev. 955 (1994)

IVF(1) Daubert and Environmental Science

Gulf Oyster Industry Refutes CSPI "Junk Science"

Relkin, Ellen, Some Implications of Daubert and Its Potential For Misuse: Misapplication to Environmental Tort Cases and Abuse of Rule 706(a) Court-Appointed Experts, 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 2255 (April 1994).

Rethinking environmental protection for the 21st century, PUB-CITE:1997 U. Chi. Legal F. 1, DATE:1997

Roisman, Anthony Z., The Courts, Daubert and Environmental Torts: Gatekeepers or Auditors? 14 Pace Envt’l L. Rev. 545 (Summer 1997).

Trask, Andrew J., Daubert and the EPA: an evidentiary approach to reviewing agency determinations of risk, 1997 U. Chi. Legal F. 569 (1997).

IVF(3) Daubert and Employment Law

Goodman-Delahunty, Jane and William E. Foote, Compensation for pain, suffering, and other psychological injuries: the impact of Daubert [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)] on employment discrimination claims, 13 Behavioral Sci. & L. 183 (Spring 1995).

Lee-Haley, Paul R., Junk Science in Employment Law Litigation

McDonald, James J., and Paul R. Lees-Haley, Avoiding "Junk Science" in Sexual Harassment Litigation, 21 Empl. Rel. L.J. 51 (Autumn 1995).

IVF(4) Daubert and Civil Rights Litigation

Beggs, Gordon J., Novel Expert Evidence In Federal CIvil Rights Litigation

IVF(5) Daubert and Non-Scientific Expert Testimony

After Kumho Tire: Challenging Non-Scientific Experts

Behavioral Science Evidence in the Wake of Daubert, 13 Behavioral Sci. & L. 127 (Spring 1995)

Bernstein, David J., Non-Scientific Experts: What Degree of Judicial Scrutiny Should They Face?

Daubert’s "Gatekeeping" Obligation Applies Not Only to "Scientific" Testimony But to All Expert Testimony, 43 Trial Law. Guide 107 (Spring 1999)

Edmond, Gary, and David Mercer, Keeping 'junk' history, philosophy and sociology of science out of the courtroom: problems with the reception of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc, 20 U. N. S. W. L.J. 48 (1997).

George, James A., The Kumho Tire Expansion of Daubert to Non-Scientific Expert Testimony: A Plaintiff's Perspective, 

Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Forensic Psychological Expertise in the Wake of Daubert, 21 Law & Hum. Behav. 121 (April 1997).

Hailey, Richard D., Combatting Defense Use of Daubert in Non-Toxic Cases: Don't Think It Won't Be Used

Humphreys, Steven L., U. S. Supreme Court Applies Daubert Standard to "Non-Scientific" Expert Testimony

Laser, Jennifer, Note: Inconsistent gatekeeping in federal courts: application of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to nonscientific expert testimony, 30 Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 1379 (April 1997).

McClellan, Edson, Note: Sharpening the Focus on Daubert’s Distinction Between Scientific and Nonscientific Expert Testimony, 34 San Diego L. Rev. 1719 (1997).

Murphy, Kevin M. and Matthew J. Cuccias, The Application of Daubert or Frye Analysis to Expert Testimony in the "Soft" Sciences

Psychological Testing and the Law, 14 Behavioral Sci. & L. 269 (Summer 1996)

Renaker, Teresa S., Note: Evidentiary Legerdemain: Deciding When Daubert Should Apply to Social Science Evidence, 84 Cal. L. Rev. 1647 (December 1996).

IVF(6) Daubert and the Polygraph

American Polygraph Association, Polygraph Information Page

Bander, Yigal, Note: United States v. Posado: The Fifth Circuit Applies Daubert to Polygraph Evidence, 57 La. L. Rev. 691 (Winter 1997)

Beardsley, Tim, Truth or Consequences: A Polygraph Screening Program Raises Questions About the Science of Lie Detection, Sci. Am., October 1999, at 21.

Carr, John A., The Admissibility of Polygraphy Evidence in Court-Martial Proceedings: Does the Constitution Mandate the Gatekeeper? 43 Air Force L. Rev. 1 (1997)

Cobb, Jennifer, Note: Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in Light of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 20 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 215 (Fall 1996)

Henseler, Timothy B., Note: A Critical Look at the Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in the Wake of Daubert: The Lie Detector Fails the Test, 46 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1247 (Summer 1997)

Mahoney, J. Jeremiah and Christopher C. VanNatta, Jurisprudential Myopia: Polygraphs in the Courtroom, 43 Air Force L. Rev. 95 (1997)

McCall, James R., Misconceptions and Reevalution Polygraph Admissibility After Rock, 1996 U. Ill. L. Rev. 363 (Rock v. Arkansas, 107 S. Ct. 2704)(1987))

Ouellet, Jeffrey Philip, Note: Posado and the polygraph: the truth behind post-Daubert deception detection, 54 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 769 (Spring 1997).

See also The Polygraph Law Resource Page and the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology Home Page.

IVF(7) Daubert, Repressed Memory Syndrome, and Other Psychological Disorders and Defenses

Duncan, Krista L., Note: "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics"?: Psychological Syndrome Evidence in the Courtroom After Daubert,, 71 Ind. L.J. 753 (Summer 1996).

Harris, Michael M., I-O Psychology in the Courtroom: Implications of the Daubert Standard

Hough, Jacqueline, Note: Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Applying the Daubert Standard in State Courts, 69 S. Cal. L. Rev. 855 (January 1996)

McAlister, Cynthia V., Note: The Repressed Memory Phenomenon: Are Recovered Memories Scientifically Valid Evidence Under Daubert? 22 N. C. Cent. L.J. 56 (1996)

The Paula Gordon Show, Psychology Is Not Science.  Includes audio.

Rogers, Richard, Randall T. Salekin and Kenneth W. Sewell, Validation of the Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory for Axis II Disorders: Does It Meet the Daubert Standard? 23 Law & Human Behav. 425 (August 1999)

IVF(8) Daubert and Economics

Gavil, Andrew I., After Daubert : discerning the increasingly fine line between the admissibility and sufficiency of expert testimony in antitrust litigation, 65 Antitrust L.J. 663 (Spring 1997)

Lanzillotti, Robert F., Coming to Terms With Daubert in Sherman Act Complaints: A Suggested Economic Approach, 77 Neb. L. Rev. 83 (1999)

Weller, Charles D., Antitrust Economics as Science After Daubert, 42 Antitrust Bull. 871 (Winter 1997)

IVF(9) Daubert and Toxic Tort Litigation

Delany, Jr., John J., and Beth Ann Cusack, Daubert and Toxic Torts

Marino, A. A. and L. E. Marino, The Scientific Basis of Causality in Toxic Tort Cases

Veron, J. Michael, The Trial of Toxic Torts: Scientific Evidence in the Wake of Daubert, 57 La. L. Rev. 647 (Winter 1997)

IVF(10) Daubert and Handwriting (FRE 901)

The Federal Standard of Expert Testimony Reliability (prepared for the 'Letric Law Library from a work by Gordon Beggs)

The Gatekeeper at Work (on U. S. v. Haines)

Graphology Web Site (includes Bibliography)

Graphology, Graphoanalysis and Handwriting Evidence (from Forensicevidence.com)

History of Handwriting Analysis. A lot of information, but this site's design makes it difficult to read.

Is Handwriting Analysis Legit? (from The Straight Dope)

Moenssens, Andre A., Handwriting Identification Evidence in the Post-Daubert World, 66 U. M. K. C. L. Rev. 251 (Winter 1997).

North Texas Skeptics, Graphology (NTS Fact Sheet)

Questioned Document Examination (includes differences between document examination techniques and graphology) (prepared for a class taught by Dr. Tom O'Connor, Department of Criminal Justice, North Carolina Wesleyan College). Professor O'Connor's criminal justice mega links

Risinger, D. Michael and Michael J. Saks, Science and Nonscience in the Courts: Daubert Meets Handwriting Identification Expertise, 82 Iowa L. Rev. 21 (October 1996)

Spohn, Julie A., The Legal Implications of Graphology, 75 Washington University Law Quarterly (Fall 1997).

IVF(11) Daubert and Breast Implant Litigation

Lubit, Beverly W., Note: The time has come for doing science: a call for the 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).

IVF(12) Daubert and Physical Disorders

Daubert, Pain, Evidence and Inference in Temporomandibular Disorders (originally published in the Defense Council Journal of Medicine and the Law)

IVG(13). Daubert and Trial Practice. See also Computer Generated Evidence

Delany, Jr., John J., and Beth Ann Cusack, Daubert and Toxic Torts

Eckstein, Paul F., and Samuel A. Thumma, Getting Scientific Evidence Admitted in Court: The Daubert Hearing

Expert Testimony--A Practical Approach to Keeping Their Junk and Getting Your Science In

IVF(14). Daubert and Fingerprint Evidence

Moenssens, Andre, Is Fingerprint Evidence a Science?

Wayman, James L., When Bad Science Leads to Good Law

IVF(15). Daubert and White Collar Crime

Collora, Michael A., Scientific Evidence With Potential Application to White Collar Crime

IVF(16). Daubert and Business

Love, Vincent J. and Dan L. Goldwasser, Update on the Preclusion of Financial Experts Under Daubert

IVG. Post-Daubert Decisions

IVG(1) Case Law

Donovan McKendall v. Crown Control Corp.

Gasparini v. Center for Humanities

IVG(2) Discussion

Burnette, Jr., Guy E., Kumho Tire v. Carmichael: The New Rules for Expert Testimony. For the text of this decision see Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 97-1709.

Ghosh, Shubha, Comment on Kumho Tire

Ghosh, Shubha, Whither Daubert? What Courts Mean by Scientific and the Implications for Carmichael

Insurance Law Update (March 24, 1999)

Kennish, John W., Daubert v. Merrell Dow and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael

Kesan, Jay P., A Critical Examination of the Post-Daubert Scientific Evidence Landscape

Kumho Tire Analysis: Center for Public Health Law

Mayer, Lindette A., Recent U. S. Supreme Court Decision Dictates the Path of Daubert

McAuliff, Bradley D. and Margaret Bull Kovera, Reviewing NonScientific Expert Evidence, 20 APA Monitor (November 1998)

Risinger, D. Michael, Mark P. Denbeaux and Michael J. Saks, Brave new "post-Daubert world" -- a reply to Professor Moenssens, 66 UMKC L. Rev. 251 (Winter 1997)

U.S. v. Cordoba,   (95-50492, 9th Cir.)

Washburne, Jake, Expert Testimony Regarding Scientific Evidence

IVH. "Junk Science" and the Scientific Method, or Dr. Science Goes to Washington

Bernstein, David J., The Science of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology

Bursztajn, Harold J., Linda Stout Saunders, and Archie Brodsky, Ask the Expert: Daubert Without Prejudice: Achieving Relevance and Reliability Without Randomness

Faigman, David L., Mapping the Labyrinth of Scientific Evidence, 46 Hastings L.J. 555 (January 1995)

Frechette, Donald E., Expert Opinion Testimony After Porter: Connecticut Adopts the Daubert Standard

Ghosh Shubha, Federal and state resolutions of the problem of Daubert and "technical or other specialized knowledge", 22 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 237 (Fall 1998).

Ghosh, Shubha, Fragmenting Knowledge, Miscontruing Rule 702

Glanville, Robert E. and Kevin M. Hogan, Courts Move to Control Junk Science (From Phillips, Lytle website)

Graham, Stuart J., Abandoning New York's "General Acceptance" Requirement: Redesigning Proposed Rule of Evidence 702(b) After Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (First Draft). Final version of this article at 43 Buffalo L. Rev. 229 (1995).

Higgins, Ann-Michele G., U. S. Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Daubert to Shield Juries From Unreliable Experts, 70 Pa. B. A. Q. 180 (October 1999).

Holloway, David W., Understanding Reliability: The Environmental Expert's Key to the Gate in Federal Court

Huber, Peter W., Joiner, Scheffer, and Kumho: Refining the Standards for Expert Evidence

Huber, Peter W., and Kenneth R. Foster, Science in the Courts

Imwinkelreid, Edward J., Developing a Coherent Theory of the Structure of Federal Rule of Evidence 703, 47 Mercer L. Rev. 447

Is It Expert Testimony or "Junk Science" Coming From the Witness Stand?

Junk Science in the Courtroom

Kennedy, R. T., Breath Alcohol Testing and Daubert Criteria: The Jurisprudence of Science in DWI Cases. (NB: A search conducted March 18, 2003 pulled up an "expired domain" notice for this item.

Klein, Marc S., Daubert: Worldwide Judicial Management of Humanity’s Specialized Knowledge, 30 U. C. Davis L. Rev. 1229 (Summer 1997)

Kuffner, Jr., C. A., E. Marchi, J. M. Morgado and C. R. Rubio, Capillary Electrophoresis and Daubert: Time for Admission

Lin, Patricia E., Note: Opening the gates to scientific evidence in toxic exposure cases: medical monitoring and Daubert, 17 Rev. Litig. 551 (Summer 1998)

Love, Vincent J. and Dan L. Goldwasser, Federal Rules of Evidence and the Professional: Greater Control in the Courtroom on Testimony by Experts, CPA Journal, January 1999

Masters, William, Junk Science in the Courtroom: How and Why "Make Believe" Science Gets Used

McDonald, James J., Daubert in employment litigation: a potent weapon against dubious science, 24 Empl. Rel. L.J. 35 (Summer 1998).

Metzger, Raphael, The Furor over "Junk Science": The Perspective of a Plaintiff's Attorney

Miller, Paul S., and Bert W. Rein, Whither Daubert ? Reliable resolution of scientifically-based causality issues in toxic tort cases, 50 Rutgers L. Rev. 563 (Winter 1998)

Monastersky, Richard, Courting Reliable Science

Moses, Allen J., Daubert, Pain, Evidence and Inference in Treating TMD, 64 Def. Couns. J. 613 (October 1997).

Murphy, Howard F., IV, Linguistics and Law: An Overview of Forensic Linguistics, 1998 IPTL 4

Murphy, Wendy J., Debunking "False Memory" Myths in Sexual Abuse Cases

Parker, Bruce R., Effective strategies for closing the door on junk science experts, 65 Def. Couns. J. 338 (July 1998).

Patterson, Mark R., Conflicts of interest in scientific expert testimony, 40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1313 (April 1999).

Pavlisin, Michael J. and Sheila K. Horan, Origin and Cause Investigators as "Fire Scientists" According to NFPA 921--Effect Under Daubert/Carmichael?

Pinsky, Lawrence S., Note: The Use of Scientific Peer Review and Colloquia to Assist Judges in the Admissibility Gatekeeping Mandated by Daubert, 34 Hous. L. Rev. 527 (Summer 1997)

Quinn, Eugene R., Jr., Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: The New Hampshire Genesis

Reeg, Kurtis B. and Cawood Bebout, What’s It All About, Daubert? 53 J. Mo. B. 369 (November/ December 1997)

Richardson, James T. and Gerald Ginsburg, A Critique of "Brainwashing' Evidence in Light of Daubert: Science and Unpopular Religions

Richmond, Douglas R., Regulating Expert Testimony, 62 Mo. L. Rev. 485 (Summer 1997)

Ridenour, Amy, Crazy Court Cases Show: Bad Science Makes Bad Law (National Center for Public Policy Research. National Policy Analysis 216)

Riley, Suzanne E., The End of an Era: Junk Science Departs Products Liability, 63 Def. Couns. J. 502 (October 1996).

Roberts, Jr., Charles C., "Junk Science", Court Decisions and Claims

Ronca, James R., Daubert Is Everywhere! Can You Keep It Out of Your Courtroom? Advice for trial lawyers practicing in state courts

Ryan, Daniel P., Expert opinion testimony and scientific evidence: does M.C.L. 600.2955 "assist" the trial judge in Michigan tort cases? 75 U. Det .Mercy L. Rev. 263 (Winter 1998).

Sase, John, The Daubert Standard

Schaller, Stephen J., Scientific Evidence, Legal Causation and the Friction Between Science and Law (presentation to the Ohio State Bar Association, 1996)

Shuman, Daniel W., What Should We Permit Health Professionals to Say About "The Best Interests of the Child"?: An Essay on Common Sense, 31 Fam. L. Q. 551 (Fall 1997).

Siegel, Adam J., Judges as Scientific "Gatekeepers": Prepared or Perplexed? (Senior honors thesis, Dartmouth College, 1998)

Slesinger, Reuben E., Using Economic Experts by Both Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys in Tort Litigation

Slovenko, Ralph, Commentary:   [Article on Junk Science], Detroit Legal News

Sneed, William M., The ongoing revolution in expert witness practice: Daubert and the Seventh Circuit, 86 Ill. B. J. 418 (August 1998).

Spadaro, Joseph A., Note: An elusive search for the truth: the admissibility of repressed and recovered memories in light of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 30 Conn. L. Rev. 1147 (Spring 1998).

Stilwell, Richard T., Monitoring the opinions of biochemists and beekeepers: the application of Daubert to engineering witnesses in Texas, 51 Baylor L. Rev. 95 (Winter 1999).

U. S. Supreme Court Reconfirms Trial Courts' "Gatekeeper" Role With Regard to "Junk Science". Discussion of General Electric v. Joiner (522 U.S. 136 (1997))

Underwager, Ralph and Hollida Wakefield, A Paradigm Shift For Expert WItnesses

Vu, Hao-Nhien Q., and Richard A. Tamor, Note: Of Daubert, Elvis, and Precedential Relevance: Live Sightings of a Dead Legal Doctrine, 41 UCLA L. Rev. 487 (December 1993)

IVI. Popular Articles and Commentary onDaubert and Junk Science

Misinformation and Junk Science in the News

see also Other Resources (this website)

Last updated




Provide Website Feedback / Accessibility Statement / Privacy Statement