The (Un)Intended Impacts of the Daubert Standard

The 1993 Daubert decision by the Supreme Court was supposed to facilitate the admission of trustworthy scientific information as evidence in courts—but did it? Do judges even usually apply the guidance of Daubert? Does the continued use of the older Frye standard, or some mix of Daubert and Frye, result in appreciably different outcomes? Panelsits Prof. Ronald J. Allen, John Henry Wigmore Professor of Law, Northwestern University and Prof. Andrew Jurs, Clemens J. Smith Faculty Research Scholar, Drake University, delve into these critical, if technical, issues at the nexus of science and justice. This session is moderated by Dr. Howard Henderson, Director, Center for Justice Research, Texas Southern University.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the presenters. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views or policy positions of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) or its members.