Abstract
This Article traces the Supreme Court's inconsistent rulings over the past fifteen years regarding the standards for admissibility of expert scientific testimony. It criticizes Daubert for usurping the right to jury trial, elevating the plaintiff's burden of proof, and altering the substance of state tort law in diversity cases. It argues that Joiner goes far beyond Daubert, authorizing federal trial judges to exclude the findings of well-established branches of science devoted to making predictions of causation when certainty is unattainable.
How to Cite
40 Ariz. L. Rev. 753 (1998)
22
Views
14
Downloads
