Cecil Joe S
Federal Judicial Center's Program on Scientific and Technical Evidence, One Columbus Circle, NE, Washington, DC 20002, USA.
Am J Public Health. 2005;95 Suppl 1:S74-80. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.044776.
In the ten years since Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, the standards for admissibility at trial of expert testimony in general and scientific evidence in particular have become more demanding. Reviews of recent cases and empirical studies of federal judges' and attorneys' practices indicate that judges are more likely to consider the admissibility of expert evidence prior to trial, to inquire more deeply into the reasoning and methodology that supports the expert opinions, and to limit or exclude such evidence from presentation at trial. Studies of published cases confirm this finding. Recent cases consider more difficult questions arising from the differing methodologies used in various areas of science. The current legal framework that assesses admissibility in terms of professional practice outside the courtroom is poorly suited to cases that require expertise across a wide range of specialties and force judges to choose from among different scientific methodologies. Future research should focus on the pretrial screening of expert testimony and interactions between the attorneys and experts in shaping that testimony.
自“道伯特诉美锐尔·陶氏制药公司案”以来的十年间，审判中专家证言尤其是科学证据的可采性标准变得更加严格。对近期案例的回顾以及对联邦法官和律师实践的实证研究表明，法官更有可能在审判前考虑专家证据的可采性，更深入地探究支持专家意见的推理和方法，并限制或排除此类证据在审判中的出示。对已公布案例的研究证实了这一发现。近期案例考虑了因不同科学领域使用不同方法而产生的更具难度的问题。当前根据法庭外专业实践来评估可采性的法律框架，不太适合需要广泛专业知识的案件，迫使法官在不同科学方法中进行选择。未来的研究应聚焦于专家证言的审前筛选以及律师与专家在形成该证言过程中的互动。
