Tag Archives: Daubert and Epidemiology

The Problems With Court-Appointed “Independent” Experts

Over at The Green Bag, Judge Richard Posner published "What Is Obviously Wrong With the Federal Judiciary, Yet Eminently Curable, Part I." The article is quintessential Posner: concise, expansive, forceful, and packed with good and bad ideas with minimal supporting citations.   Let’s focus today on his arguments about Federal Rule of Evidence 706:   A big problem with jury trials is that often they involve technological or commercial issues that few jurors understand (not that many judges understand them either) and that the lawyers and witnesses are unable or unwilling to dumb down to a level that the jurors ... Continue Reading

TweetLikeEmailLinkedIn

Statistical Significance Has No Place In A Daubert Analysis

Back in July 2014, I wrote a post about the misuse of “statistical significance” by defendants and courts trying to apply the Daubert standard to scientific evidence. As I wrote,   It’s true that researchers typically use statistical formulas to calculate a “95% confidence interval” — or, as they say in the jargon of statistics, “p < 0.05” — but this isn’t really a scientifically-derived standard. There’s no natural law or empirical evidence which tells us that “95%” is the right number to pick to call something “statistically significant.” The number “1 in 20” was pulled out of thin air ... Continue Reading

TweetLikeEmailLinkedIn

Daubert Doesn’t Ask Judges To Become Experts On Statistics

Update: It's worth pointing out that, a year and a half after Dr. Anick Bérard's testimony was precluded as "unreliable," she published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, using many of the same methods the court deemed unacceptable.   Back in 2012, I wrote: “Scientific evidence is one of those rare areas of law upon which every lawyer agrees: we are all certain that everyone else is wrong.”   There have been some missteps in the law’s use of scientific proof as evidence in civil litigation — like when the Supreme Court affirmed a trial court holding in ... Continue Reading

TweetLikeEmailLinkedIn