This article examines trial court rulings concerning the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the trial judge's role as a “gatekeeper” and gave trial judges substantial discretion over their scrutiny of expert testimony. Because the external constraints on admissibility rulings are minimal, one might expect that if trial judges' ideology were to play some role in their decision making, it might do so here. To test this expectation, I perform a binomial logit analysis of federal district court Daubert rulings in tort cases from 1983 to 2003. I find substantial support for the claim that trial judges' ideology can predict decisions on admissibility. I find less support, however, for the claim that Daubert affected trial judges' willingness to admit such testimony, and no evidence that such decisions are affected by the prospect of reversal on appeal.
Ashenfelter, O., Eisenberg, T., & Schwab, S.J. (1995). Politics and the judiciary: The influence of judicial background on case outcomes. Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 257-281.
2.
Barnes, D.W., & Conley, J.M. (1986). Statistical evidence in litigation: Methodology, procedure, and practice. Boston: Little, Brown.
3.
Beggs, G.J. (1995, October). Novel expert evidence in federal civil rights litigation. American University Law Review, 45, 2-75.
4.
Berger, M.A. (2005). What has a decade of Daubert wrought?American Journal of Public Health, 95, S59-S65.
5.
Cross, F.B., & Tiller, E.H. (1998). Judicial partisanship and obedience to legal doctrine: Whistle-blowing on the federal Courts of Appeals. Yale Law Journal, 107, 2155-2176.
6.
Crowley, T.M. (1998). Help me Mr. Wizard! Can we really have “Neutral” Rule 706 experts? Detroit College of Law Review, 1998, 928-976.
7.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
8.
Dixon, L., & Gill, B. (2001). Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
9.
Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
10.
Faigman, D.L., Porter, E., & Saks, M.J. (1994). Check your crystal ball at the courthouse door, please: Exploring the past, understanding the present, and worrying about the future of scientific evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 15, 1799-1835.
11.
Federal Judicial Center (1994). Reference manual on scientific evidence. Washington, DC : Government Printing Office.
12.
Federal Rules of Evidence 702 (2006). Retrieved April 18, 2007, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/index.html#article_i
13.
Ferejohn, J.A., & Shipan, C. (1990). Congressional influence on bureaucracy. Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations, 6, 1-20.
14.
Friedrich, R.J. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science , 26, 797-833.
15.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923).
16.
Galanter, M. (1974). Why the “Haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law and Society Review, 9, 95-160.
17.
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.
18.
Gely, R., & Spiller, P.T. (1990). A rational choice theory of Supreme Court statutory decisions with application to the State Farm and Grove City cases. Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations, 6, 263-300.
19.
Gely, R., & Spiller, P.T. (1992). The political economy of Supreme Court constitutional decisions: The case of Roosevelt's court-packing plan. International Review of Law and Economics, 12, 45-67.
20.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
21.
Giles, M.W., Hettinger, V.A., & Peppers, T. (2001). Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 623-641.
22.
Gillman, H. (2001). What's law got to do with it? Judicial behavioralists test the legal model of judicial decision-making. Law and Social Inquiry, 26, 465-504.
23.
Gillman, H., & Clayton, C.W. (1999). Beyond judicial attitudes: Institutional approaches to Supreme Court decision-making. In C. W. Clayton & H. Gillman (Eds.), Supreme Court decision-making: New institutional approaches (pp. 1-12). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
24.
Glick, H.R. (1993). Courts, politics, and justice (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
25.
Goldman, S. (1966). Voting behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961-64. American Political Science Review, 60, 374-383.
26.
Goldman, S. (1975). Voting behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals revisited. American Political Science Review, 69, 491-506.
27.
Horowitz, D.L. (1977). The courts and social policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
28.
Huber, P.W. (1991). Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom . New York: Basic Books.
29.
Imai, K., King, G., & Lau, O. (2006). Zelig: Everyone's statistical software. Retrieved March 15, 2007, from http://gking.harvard.edu/zelig/
30.
Jacob, H. (1965). Justice in America. Boston : Little, Brown.
31.
Jacob, H. (1967). Law, politics, and the federal courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
32.
Johnson, S.W., & Songer, D.R. (2002). The influence of presidential versus home state senatorial preferences on the policy output of judges on the United States district courts. Law and Society Review, 36, 657-673.
33.
Krafka, C., Dunn, M.A., Johnson, M.T., Cecil, J.S., & Miletich, D. (2002). Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 8, 309-332.
34.
Kritzer, H.M., & Richards, M.J. (2003). Jurisprudential regimes and Supreme Court decision making: The Lemon regime and Establishment Clause cases. Law and Society Review, 37, 827-840.
35.
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
36.
Maltzman, F., Spriggs, J.F., II, & Wahlbeck, P.J. (2000). Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Mather, L. (1991). Policy making in state trial courts. In J. B. Gates & C. A. Johnson (Eds.), The American courts: A critical assessment (pp. 119-157). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
38.
Mather, L. (1995). The fired football coach (or, how trial courts make policy). In L. Epstein (Ed.), Contemplating courts (pp. 170-202). Washington: CQ Press.
39.
McCann, M.W. (1994). Rights at work: Pay equity reform and the politics of legal mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
McCann, M.W. (1996). Causal versus constitutive explanations (or, on the difficulty of being so positive). Law and Social Inquiry , 21, 457-482.
41.
Milich, P.S. (1994). Controversial science in the courtroom: Daubert and the law's hubris. Emory Law Journal, 43, 913-926.
42.
Pinello, D.R. (1998). Linking party to judicial ideology in American courts: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
43.
Poole, K.T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
Rebell, M.A., & Block, A.R. (1982). Educational policy making and the courts: An empirical study of judicial activism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
Richards, M.J., & Kritzer, H.M. (2002). Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 96, 305-320.
46.
Rogers, J. (2001). Information and judicial review: A signaling game of legislative-judicial interaction. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 84-99.
47.
Rowland, C.K., & Carp, R.A. (1996). Politics and judgment in federal district courts . Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
48.
Saks, M.J. (1998). Merlin and Solomon: Lessons from the law's formative encounters with forensic identification science. Hastings Law Journal, 49, 1069-1141.
49.
Scherer, N. (2005). Scoring points: Politicians, activists and the lower court appointment process. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
50.
Segal, J.A., & Cover, A.D. (1989). Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review, 83, 557-566.
51.
Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited . New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Shapiro, M. (1964). Law and politics in the Supreme Court. New York: Free Press.
54.
Smith, R.M. (1988). Political jurisprudence, the “New Institutionalism,” and the future of public law. American Political Science Review , 82, 89-108.
55.
Songer, D., & Davis, S. (1990). The impact of party and region on voting decisions in the United States Courts of Appeals. Western Political Quarterly, 43, 317-334.
56.
Songer, D., & Haire, S. (1992). Integrating alternative approaches to the study of judicial voting: Obscenity cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 963-982.
57.
Spaeth, H.J., & Segal, J.A. (1999). Majority rule or minority will: Adherence to precedent on the U.S. SupremeCourt. New York : Cambridge University Press.
58.
Spring Co. v. Edgar, 99 U.S. 645 (1879).
59.
Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1996). Daubert and the Reference Manual: An essay on the future of science in law. Virginia Law Review, 82, 837-857.
60.
Walsh, J.T. (1999). Keeping the gate: The evolving role of the judiciary in admitting scientific evidence. Judicature, 83, 140-143.
