NCJ Number
197789
Journal
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Volume: 17 Issue: 2 Dated: Fall 2002 Pages: 1-8
Date Published
2002
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article examines the history of the development of the Daubert Standard for expert testimony and proposes principles for potential expert witnesses, with attention to police psychologists, in order to minimize the likelihood of aversive consequences, such as disqualification or malpractice accusations.
Abstract
As determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical (1993), four factors constitute the standard for expert testimony: has the scientific theory been tested; has the opinion been published and reviewed by peers; what is known of the potential error rate; and have the findings been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Although six States have decided to remain with the previous Frye Standard for expert testimony, 38 States now embrace some form of the Daubert Standard. This article states and elaborates on 16 rules developed by the police psychologists of Matrix, Inc., from the general and legal literature as a guide in facing the challenge of the Daubert Standard for expert testimony. These rules are as follows: avoid "unusual testimony;" avoid over-reaching; balance explanations; be certain the work involved in the testimony is consistent and intellectually honest; avoid "weird" specialties; don't overuse personal experience; not all jurisdictions accept Daubert; a recognized minority position on a matter at issue may still be admissible; document steps to conclusions; reports have new importance; use methods familiar to the court; avoid the general and be as specific as possible; use multi-level approaches; know why you are there; watch your words; and use names of studies, even to excess. Some of the potential challenges to the testimony of police psychologists under the Daubert Standard are discussed. 23 references