FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 330:1018-1021 April 7, 1994 Number 14 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

In one of the most anticlimactic cases in recent years, the Supreme Court ruled on the last day of its 1992-1993 term that federal judges should admit all relevant scientific testimony and evidence that is "reliable"¹. The result was so uncontroversial that both sides in the case said they were satisfied; because the result was also so vague, it will probably be years before its effect can be accurately ascertained. The facts of the case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,¹ are somewhat more interesting than its prosaic legal conclusion.

Bendectin, an antinausea drug prescribed to a total of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The Case of Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller

The Supreme Court Opinion

Tests of Admissibility

Daubert's Strength and Weakness

Juries, Science, and Justice

References

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Satiani, B. (2006). Expert Witness Testimony: Rules of Engagement. VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURG 40: 223-227 [Abstract]  
• Kassirer, J. P., Cecil, J. S. (2002). Inconsistency in Evidentiary Standards for Medical Testimony: Disorder in the Courts. JAMA 288: 1382-1387 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Colbach, E. M. (1997). The Trouble with American Forensic Psychiatry. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 41: 160-167 [Abstract]  
• Angell, M. (1994). Do Breast Implants Cause Systemic Disease? -- Science in the Courtroom. NEJM 330: 1748-1749 [Full Text]