Fifteen years after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling on science and expert testimony in the courtroom, state courts are still sharply divided in their approach, with some following the federal Daubert rule, others the older Frye rule, and yet others embracing alterations or exceptions to one or the other. In a WLF Legal Backgrounder paper (PDF) last month, Martin Calhoun of Spriggs & Hollingsworth lays out the current pattern of Daubert-adoption and concludes that "too many juries in too many states still render verdicts based on expert testimony that is not supported by sound science and would not satisfy Daubert's exacting standards of reliability."
Daubert (& Frye) 15 years later
Related Entries:
- How much is the Bluetooth settlement injunction worth?
- Around the web, February 21
- Preempro jackpot justice verdicts in Philadelphia
- Chesley experts in two cases drop testimony
- Liability for thee, but not for me
- Texas Supreme Court finishes off Garza v. Merck
- "Win or lose, trial lawyers get millions in Vioxx fees"
- Dewey v. Volkswagen opening brief
- What the heck is going on in King County family court?
- Around the web, July 12
- Podcast on Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- $322M verdict for phantom asbestosis
- Gameshow justice: Godwin v. Electrolux Home Prods.
- Ken Feinberg and the Kentucky fen-phen suit
- Around the web, February 5
![]() |
Rafael Mangual Project Manager, Legal Policy rmangual@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
Katherine Lazarski Manhattan Institute klazarski@manhattan-institute.org |