Explaining the Tension between the Supreme Court's Embrace of Validity as the Touchstone of Admissibility of Expert Testimony and Lower Courts' (Seeming) Rejection of Same

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

By lopsided majorities, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of cases, persistently commanded the lower courts to condition the admission of proffered expert testimony on the demonstrated validity of the proponents’ claims of expertise. In at least one broad area–the so-called forensic sciences–the courts below have largely evaded the Supreme Court's holdings. This paper aims to try to explain this massive defiance by the lower courts in terms of social epistemology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)329-342
Number of pages14
JournalEpisteme
Volume5
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008

Fingerprint

Supreme Court
Expert Testimony
Rejection
Expertise
Social Epistemology
Defiance
Holdings
Admission
U.S. Supreme Court

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • History and Philosophy of Science

Cite this

@article{697d97802b1f4489a72d269a98dcc44d,
title = "Explaining the Tension between the Supreme Court's Embrace of Validity as the Touchstone of Admissibility of Expert Testimony and Lower Courts' (Seeming) Rejection of Same",
abstract = "By lopsided majorities, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of cases, persistently commanded the lower courts to condition the admission of proffered expert testimony on the demonstrated validity of the proponents’ claims of expertise. In at least one broad area–the so-called forensic sciences–the courts below have largely evaded the Supreme Court's holdings. This paper aims to try to explain this massive defiance by the lower courts in terms of social epistemology.",
author = "Michael Saks",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.3366/E1742360008000439",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "329--342",
journal = "Episteme",
issn = "1742-3600",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Explaining the Tension between the Supreme Court's Embrace of Validity as the Touchstone of Admissibility of Expert Testimony and Lower Courts' (Seeming) Rejection of Same

AU - Saks, Michael

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - By lopsided majorities, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of cases, persistently commanded the lower courts to condition the admission of proffered expert testimony on the demonstrated validity of the proponents’ claims of expertise. In at least one broad area–the so-called forensic sciences–the courts below have largely evaded the Supreme Court's holdings. This paper aims to try to explain this massive defiance by the lower courts in terms of social epistemology.

AB - By lopsided majorities, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of cases, persistently commanded the lower courts to condition the admission of proffered expert testimony on the demonstrated validity of the proponents’ claims of expertise. In at least one broad area–the so-called forensic sciences–the courts below have largely evaded the Supreme Court's holdings. This paper aims to try to explain this massive defiance by the lower courts in terms of social epistemology.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85010634430&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85010634430&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3366/E1742360008000439

DO - 10.3366/E1742360008000439

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85010634430

VL - 5

SP - 329

EP - 342

JO - Episteme

JF - Episteme

SN - 1742-3600

IS - 3

ER -