Talk:Daubert standard/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Comment by CyberGroup
The history stated that Daubert went from a relevancy standard to a reliability standard, but that is not accurate. The current standard is relevancy and reliability. Furthermore, I have never seen "general acceptance" referred to as a relevancy standard.
Research on Daubert as a standard turns up many debates about whether it is a liberal or conservative standard, which seemed important to note after describing Frye as conservative.
A discussion of the history of the Daubert standard is not complete without reference to the “Daubert Trilogy” that refined and clarified the reach of Daubert. CyberGroup 15:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Litigation science
If I understand this interesting article correctly, the Daubert contains, according to Alex Kozinski, a judge with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a "'very significant' consideration when evaluating the admissibility of experts [...] whether their testimony would reflect analyses or data developed in the course of independent research versus those produced 'expressly' for use in a trial." According to the article, the latter has come to be known as litigation science. Should this be included in the Definition section, or where would be a good place for this? — Sebastian 21:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a good place for that is at Forensic science. I will for now create a section there, just to have a target for the redirect page Litigation science. Please adjust as appropriate. — Sebastian 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)