| UC Toxics News: Spring/Summer
2005
In the 1993 case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court ruled that judges must act as gatekeepers of proffered expert testimony, assuring that it is reliable and relevant. Now judges must ensure that the proposed testimony amounts to scientific knowledge, constitutes good science, is derived by the scientific method and logically advances the case. This is no small task and has significantly increased their responsibilities. How have judges been doing since the Daubert ruling? David Strauss, a doctoral student in Philosophy working with Professor Carl Cranor at UC Riverside received a TSR&TP fellowship to better understand what good toxicological evidence is and to communicate this to judges involved in toxic tort litigations where plaintiffs seek compensation for damages. "Judges often don't have any formal scientific training or expertise in the area of the expert witnesses," says Strauss, "but they have to determine if the expert is testifying in a scientifically reasonable way."
Strauss worked with Cranor and David Eastmond, an Environmental Toxicology professor at UCR on a study to investigate how well judges have been evaluating scientific testimony. One conclusion reached from this study is that judges were being too restrictive with case studies as evidence for toxicity. Strauss explains, "Judges were quite harsh on their treatment of experts who relied on case studies, which is contrary to the way toxicologists use case studies. We reached similar findings for animal studies. Judges were not taking animal studies as seriously as most toxicologists take them for toxicity." The courtroom paradox is that experts testify, but the ultimate decisions are made by laypeople - the judge and jury. "The expert's authority is to advise the outcome of the case, but they don't have authority to determine the outcome," says Strauss. In his dissertation, Strauss examined that anomaly and the historical and moral basis of the seemingly contradictory design of our legal system. He concluded that despite these differences, the system seems to be functioning the way our founding fathers intended. "We don't need to look at it as such a huge problem that non-experts are making decisions", explains Strauss. "It may look like an anomaly but it's not detrimental to the implementation of justice. It fits reasonably well with our overall jury system to have jurors evaluating expert testimony." Strauss also reviewed how jurors interact with experts. "The relationship between the expert and the juror is not all that different than between a juror and an eyewitness in a murder case," says Strauss. "The juror has to rely on whether or not they trust the witness to be telling the truth." This seems to be what many jurors will do anyway, based on previous research by social scientists. Strauss hopes that his research will help provide guidance for judges and (indirectly) jurors in evaluating expert testimony. In summer 2004, Strauss received his PhD and began working as a Management Analyst in the Presidential Management Fellows Program at the Pentagon, analyzing policy for the Marine Corps. He says his position as a fellow was interesting and quite different from graduate school. "I'm in a cubicle wearing a suit and tie - that's certainly a new experience." He recently began a position as a Research Analyst with the Center for Naval Analyses. Strauss says that his TSR&TP fellowship was a valuable experience. "The funding was generous and I enjoyed participating in the Symposium. One of the greatest benefits was that it gave me more time to focus on the quality of my research and allowed me to finish the project much sooner than I otherwise would have."
|
