|WikiProject Law||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|Daily page views|
Comment by CyberGroup
The history stated that Daubert went from a relevancy standard to a reliability standard, but that is not accurate. The current standard is relevancy and reliability. Furthermore, I have never seen "general acceptance" referred to as a relevancy standard.
Research on Daubert as a standard turns up many debates about whether it is a liberal or conservative standard, which seemed important to note after describing Frye as conservative.
A discussion of the history of the Daubert standard is not complete without reference to the “Daubert Trilogy” that refined and clarified the reach of Daubert. CyberGroup 15:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by 126.96.36.199
This article is either grossly plagerized from answers.com, or vice-versa. Someone really should look into that - Nat — Preceding undated comment added 04:26, June 5, 2006
If I understand this interesting article correctly, the Daubert contains, according to Alex Kozinski, a judge with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a "'very significant' consideration when evaluating the admissibility of experts [...] whether their testimony would reflect analyses or data developed in the course of independent research versus those produced 'expressly' for use in a trial." According to the article, the latter has come to be known as litigation science. Should this be included in the Definition section, or where would be a good place for this? — Sebastian 21:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a good place for that is at Forensic science. I will for now create a section there, just to have a target for the redirect page Litigation science. Please adjust as appropriate. — Sebastian 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
An explanation for the dense?
From the language quoted from the decision, it sounds like the Court intended/expected the Daubert standard to lower the bar to get juries to hear expert testimony compared to the Frye test, but the rest of the article seems to indicate that it had the opposite effect. Anyone who knows why willing to add a little bit of explanation for this to the article? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daubert standard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628074418/http://www.defendingscience.org:80/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=2407 to http://www.defendingscience.org/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=2407
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.