Expert Evidence: The (Unfulfilled) Promise of Daubert

Chorn J. A. Kovera M. B. (2019). Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/lhb0000345

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995).

DeMatteo D. Burl J. Filone S. Heilbrun K. (2016). Training in forensic assessment and intervention: Implications for principles-based models. In Jackson R. Roesch R. (Eds.), Learning forensic assessment: Research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

DeMatteo D. Fairfax-Columbo J. Desai A. (2020). Becoming a forensic psychologist. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

DeMatteo D. Marczyk G. Krauss D. A. Burl J. (2009). Educational and training models in forensic psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3, 184–191.

Dixon L. Gill B. (2002). Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in civil cases since the Daubert decision. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 251–308.

Ellman I. M. Ellman T. (2015). “Frightening and high”: The Supreme Court’s crucial mistake about sex crime statistics. Constitutional Commentary, 30, 495–508.

Faigman D. Kaye D. Saks M. Sanders J. Cheng E. (2008). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 1). St. Paul, MN: West Group.

Freeman-Longo R. E. Wall R. V. (1986). Changing a lifetime of sexual crime; can sexual offenders ever alter their ways? Special treatment programs provide some hope. Psychology Today, 20(3), 58–62.

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

Gatowski S. I. Dobbin S. A. Richardson J. T. Ginsburg G. P. Merlino M. L. Dahir V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433–458.

General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).

Groscup J. L. Penrod S. D. Studebaker C. A. Huss M. T. O’Neil K. M. (2002). The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 339–372.

Heilbrun K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

Heilbrun K. DeMatteo D. Brooks Holliday S. LaDuke C. (Eds.). (2014). Forensic mental health assessment: A casebook (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Heilbrun K. Grisso T. Goldstein A. M. (2009). Foundations of forensic mental health assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kovera M. McAuliff B. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574–586.

Krauss D. A. Cassar D. Strother A. (2009). The admissibility of expert testimony in the United States, the Commonwealth, and elsewhere. In Krauss D. A. Lieberman J. D. (Eds.), Psychological expertise in court: Psychology in the courtroom (Vol. II, pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Ashgate.

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

Malone D. M. Zwier P. (2014). Effective expert testimony (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

McAuliff B. D. Groscup J. L. (2009). Daubert and psychological science in court: Judging validity from the bench, bar, and jury box. In Skeem J. L. Douglas K. S. Lilienfeld S. O. (Eds.), Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversy (pp. 26–52). New York, NY: Guilford.

McAuliff B. D. Kovera M. B. Nunez G. (2009). Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law and Human Behavior, 33, 247–257.

McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002).

Melton G. B. Petrila J. Poythress N. G. Slobogin C. Otto R. K. Mossman D. Condie L. O. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

Neal T. M. S. Slobogin C. Saks M. J. Faigman D. L. Geisinger K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20, 134–163. doi:10.1177/1529100619888860

Skeem J. L. Douglas K. S. Lilienfeld S. O. (Eds.). (2009). Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversy. New York, NY: Guilford.

Slobogin C. Hafemeister T. L. Mossman D. Reisner R. (2014). Law and the mental health system: Civil and criminal aspects (6th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 24 (2003).