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?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

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

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?