skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 153596 Find in a Library
Title: Daubert's Guide to the Federal Rules of Evidence: A Not-So- Plain-Meaning Jurisprudence
Journal: Harvard Journal on Legislation  Volume:32  Issue:1  Dated:(Winter 1995)  Pages:3-77
Author(s): A E Taslitz
Date Published: 1995
Page Count: 75
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Following a review of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dauber v. Marl Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc. (1993), which established a new test for the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, this article critiques a "plain- meaning" approach to interpreting the Rules, as manifested in the "Dauber" decision.
Abstract: In Dauber v. Marl Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court replaced the Free v. United States test, which required that novel scientific evidence be "generally accepted" before being admissible in court, with a "reliability test" embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence. After Dauber, scientific evidence is admissible if it is "relevant and reliable." The judge must therefore examine the science underlying the testimony and base his admissibility decision on a weighing of factors that the U.S. Supreme Court has, to date, only partly identified. This article focuses on Dauber for the purpose of understanding and critiquing the Court's approach to interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence. Scholars have argued that the Court has adopted a rigid "plain-meaning" approach to Rule interpretation, allowing exceptions only for highly unusual cases. This article argues that the Federal Rules of Evidence are particularly appropriate for a more flexible, as opposed to "plain-meaning" approach, to interpreting the Rules. 403 footnotes
Main Term(s): Court procedures
Index Term(s): Federal courts; Rules of evidence; Science and Technology; Scientific testimony; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.