15 Cardozo L. Rev. 2271 (1993 - 1994)
The Next Step after Daubert: Developing a Similarly Epistemological Approach to Ensuring the Reliability of Nonscientific Expert Testimony

handle is hein.journals/cdozo15 and id is 2297 raw text is: THE NEXT STEP AFTER DAUBER T:
Edward J. Imwinkelried*
On June 28, 1993, after much fanfare, the United States Supreme
Court rendered its decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuti-
cals, Inc. I The decision was not only preceded by intense media atten-
tion;2 the decision was also immediately followed by a massive-and
growing-volume of commentary.3 As is usually true with landmark
* Professor of Law, University of California, at Davis; former Chair, Evidence Section,
American Association of Law Schools. B.A., 1967, University of San Francisco; J.D., 1969,
University of San Francisco.
I 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
2 Paul M. Barrett, Top Court Agrees to Clarify Use of Scientific Evidence in Trials, WALL
ST. J., Oct. 14, 1992, at B9; Sharon Begley, The Meaning of Junk: What's 'Good'Science? The
Supreme Court Tackles the Question, NEWSWEEK, Mar. 22, 1993, at 62; David E. Bernstein,
Junk Science in the Courtroom, WALL ST. J., Mar. 24, 1993, at A15; Joan Biskupic, High
Court to Review Expert-Witness Standards in Product Case, WASH. POST, Oct. 14, 1992, at
AI6; Marcia Coyle, Supreme Court to Examine Scientific Proof, NAT'L L.J., Feb. 1, 1993, at 1;
Linda Greenhouse, High Court to Decide Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in U.S. Courts,
N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 14, 1992, at Al; 'Junk Science' and Justice: Court Will Decide When Expert
Opinions Are Admissible, MISSOULIAN, Oct. 14, 1992, at A3; Tony Mauro, Bendectin Case to
Test 'Junk Science,' USA TODAY, Oct. 14, 1992, at 9A.
3 Natalie Angier, Ruling on Scientific Evidence: A Just Burden, N.Y. TIMES, June 30,
1993, at A8; Bert Black & John A. Singer, From Frye to Daubert: A New Test for Scientific
Evidence, 1 SHEPARD'S EXPERT & Sci. EVIDENCE Q. 19 (1993); Stephen A. Brunette, Daubert
Has Immediate Impact?, 1 SHEPARD'S EXPERT & Sa. EVIDENCE Q. 107 (1993); George W.
Conk, Commentary. Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 1 SHEPARD'S EXPERT & SCd. EVIDENCE Q. 55
(1993); James Dam, Supreme Court Allows More Scientific Evidence, LAW. WKLY. USA, July
5, 1993, at 1; Michael D. Green, Relief at the Frying of Frye: Reflections on Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, I SHEPARD'S EXPERT & Sc. EVIDENCE Q. 43 (1993); Peter W. Hu-
ber, Science on Trial, CHEMISTRY & INDUSTRY, Aug. 2, 1993, at 604; Edward J. Im-
winkelried, The Daubert Decision: Frye Is Dead, Long Live the Federal Rules of Evidence,
TRIAL, Sept. 1993, at 60; Thomas W. Kirby, Matching Procedure to Policy: An Enhanced Role
for Trial Judges and Closer Scrutiny of the Rational Underpinnings of Theoretical Evidence
Will Stop Junk Science from Flooding the Courts, THE RECORDER, Aug. 30, 1993, at 6;
Thomas W. Kirby, Putting Experts Under Scrutiny, LEGAL TIMES, July 26, 1993, at S38;
Barry J. Nace, Reaction to Daubert, 1 SHEPARD'S EXPERT & SCI. EVIDENCE Q. 51 (1993);
Richard C. Reuben, Brave New World: A New Supreme Court Ruling on Scientific Evidence
May Cause More Problems than it Solves, CAL. LAW., Sept. 1993, at 31; Supreme Court's Frye
Ruling Seen as 'Two-Edged'Sword, BNA Crim. Prac. Manual (BNA) No. 15, at 345 (July 21,


What Is HeinOnline?

With comprehensive coverage of government documents and more than 2,400 journals from inception on hundreds of subjects such as political science, criminal justice, and human rights, HeinOnline is an affordable option for colleges and universities. Documents have the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?