Chamberlain R T
SmithKline Beecham Clinical Labs, Tampa, FL 33617, USA.
Clin Chem. 1996 Aug;42(8 Pt 2):1337-41.
The clinical toxicologist may play a role in court when issues arise concerning therapeutic drug monitoring, drug abuse, environmental chemicals, or toxic torts, where the traditional forensic toxicologist may not have expertise. Beyond being credible in court, the toxicologist's testimony must be based on good scientific evidence. The ruler for measuring good scientific evidence had previously been the Frye Test, or the general acceptance test. In 1993, however, the US Supreme Court established four balancing tests that should be used for the admissibility of scientific evidence. Although the ruling is binding only in federal courts, state courts are expected to follow. When testifying, the clinical toxicologist should be aware of other court rules and expectations. As with all testimony, objections from opposing counsel can be raised to disallow the presentation of evidence by a toxicologist. The toxicologist is usually used to establish causation of injury, whether from negligence, prenatal injury, or environmental chemicals. Several examples are presented.
当出现与治疗药物监测、药物滥用、环境化学物质或有毒侵权行为相关的问题时,临床毒理学家可能会在法庭上发挥作用,而传统法医毒理学家可能对此并不具备专业知识。除了在法庭上具有可信度外,毒理学家的证词必须基于可靠的科学证据。衡量可靠科学证据的标准以前是弗莱伊测试,即普遍接受测试。然而,1993年,美国最高法院确立了四项权衡测试,应用于科学证据的可采性。尽管该裁决仅对联邦法院具有约束力,但州法院也应遵循。作证时,临床毒理学家应了解其他法庭规则和期望。与所有证词一样,对方律师可能会提出反对意见,以阻止毒理学家出示证据。毒理学家通常用于确定伤害的因果关系,无论是源于疏忽、产前伤害还是环境化学物质。文中给出了几个例子。