Daubert standard

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Daubert Standard is a catalog of criteria that has been used by parts of US jurisprudence since 1993, which is used to check whether a method, a theory, or the like. basic scientific principles is sufficient.

The four Daubert criteria are:

  1. Empirical verifiability: Can the method or theory used be verified or falsified?
  2. Has the method been published in a specialist journal and has been peer-reviewed ?
  3. Is there a statement about the uncertainty of the method and is this statement taken into account when evaluating the results?
  4. Is the method generally accepted in a relevant scientific community?

The older Frye standard , by which the use of a polygraph in criminal proceedings had been declared inadmissible, only included the last criterion, namely whether the method was recognized in the relevant subject. In contrast to Frye , general acceptance is only a necessary, but not a sufficient condition .

The Daubert Standard is largely based on a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1993. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , 509 US 579 (1993), the question was clarified under which conditions a scientific method should be admitted as evidence in court. In the specific case, the issue was that two children sued the pharmaceutical manufacturer Dow Chemicals because they attributed birth defects to a drug ( pyridoxine / doxylamine ) marketed under the trade name Bendectin , which their mothers had taken to prevent nausea during pregnancy. Her complaint was based on animal studies, chemical structural analyzes and an unpublished secondary analysis based on previously published epidemiological studies. This evidence was rejected by the judges based on the Daubert standard.

A prominent example of the application of this test catalog with regard to the reliability of expert statements is the legal assessment of so-called intelligent design , i.e. the hypothesis of a creative process as the origin of life on earth, advocated by the neo-creationists .

Daubert standard in other countries

Canadian case law is increasingly based on the American model with regard to the admissibility of expert statements. In R. v. J. , a 2000 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada , the judge made explicit reference to the American Daubert Standard: The dramatic increase in the frequency with which experts are called has led to discussions about how to make their attendance appropriate control and exclude junk science , the judge said. The American catalog of criteria differs from the Canadian method, but it is appropriate to rely on the Daubert criteria in order to assess the reliability of new scientific theories.

The Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons recommended in a 2005 report that a forensic advisory board be set up to better regulate the admission of evidence used in court. The report also stated that the lack of an agreed procedure for validating scientific techniques before allowing them to go to court was unsatisfactory. The judges are not qualified enough to determine scientific validity alone. One of the first tasks of the forensic advisory board must be the development of a "gate-keeping" test for expert reports. This test should be developed in collaboration with judges, academics and other key players in the criminal justice system and should build on the American Daubert test.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ HG Hamilton: The Movement From “Frye” to “Daubert”: Where Do the States Stand? In: Jurimetrics. 38, No. 2, Winter 1998, pp. 201-213.
  2. ↑ R v. J (J.-L.) [2000] 2 SCR 600, 2000 SCC 51.
  3. ^ GD Glancy, JMW Bradford: The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Canada. In: Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 35, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 350-356.
  4. ^ House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: Forensic Science on Trial. The Stationery Office Limited, London 2005, p. 76.