Supreme Court to judges: start thinking like scientists.
作者信息
Mervis J
出版信息
Science. 1993 Jul 2;261(5117):22. doi: 10.1126/science.8316850.
PMID:8316850
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Supreme Court to judges: start thinking like scientists.最高法院对法官们表示：要开始像科学家一样思考。
Science. 1993 Jul 2;261(5117):22. doi: 10.1126/science.8316850.
2
Daubert v Merrell Dow. The Supreme Court tackles scientific evidence in the courtroom.多伯特诉美锐尔·道公司案。美国最高法院着手处理法庭上的科学证据问题。
JAMA. 1993;270(24):2964-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.270.24.2964.
3
4
Admissibility of scientific testimony into evidence.科学证言作为证据的可采性。
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1994 Mar 1;51(5):683-5.
5
Supreme Court to weigh science.最高法院将权衡科学依据。
Science. 1993 Jan 29;259(5095):588-90. doi: 10.1126/science.8338515.
6
Bendectin case dismissed.“曲美苄胺案”撤诉。
Science. 1995 Jan 13;267(5195):167. doi: 10.1126/science.7809619.
7
Evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony.评估专家证词的可采性。
Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1994 Jan;45(1):9-10. doi: 10.1176/ps.45.1.9.
8
Two legal issues: expert witnesses and Bendectin case.两个法律问题：专家证人与苯丙醇胺案例。
Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1983 Nov;17(11):848-9. doi: 10.1177/106002808301701118.
9
Bendectin/debendox. Drug not guilty, says court.
Nature. 1985;314(6008):209. doi: 10.1038/314209b0.
10
Science, law, and the search for truth in the courtroom: lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow.科学、法律与法庭上对真相的探寻：从多伯特诉美锐尔·陶氏案中汲取的教训
J Law Med Ethics. 1994 Spring;22(1):6-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.1994.tb01270.x.
Zotero 插件