Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert World

Drawing on the responses provided by a survey of state court judges (N = 400), empirical evidence is presented with respect to judges' opinions about the Daubert criteria, their utility as decision-making guidelines, the level to which judges understand their scientific meaning, and how they might apply them when evaluating the admissibility of expert evidence. Proportionate stratified random sampling was used to obtain a representative sample of state court judges. Part I of the survey was a structured telephone interview (response rate of 71%) and in Part II, respondents had an option of completing the survey by telephone or receiving a questionnaire in the mail (response rate of 81%). Survey results demonstrate that judges overwhelmingly support the gatekeeping role as defined by Daubert, irrespective of the admissibility standard followed in their state. However, many of the judges surveyed lacked the scientific literacy seemingly necessitated by Daubert. Judges had the most difficulty operationalizing falsifiability and error rate, with only 5% of the respondents demonstrating a clear understanding of falsifiability and only 4% demonstrating a clear understanding of error rate. Although there was little consensus about the relative importance of the guidelines, judges attributed more weight to general acceptance as an admissibility criterion. Although most judges agreed that a distinction could be made between scientific and technical or otherwise specialized knowledge, the ability to apply the Daubert guidelines appeared to have little bearing on whether specific types of expert evidence were designated as science or nonscience. Moreover, judges' bench philosophy of science seemed to reflect the rhetoric, rather than the substance, of Daubert. Implications of these results for the evolving relationship between science and law and the ongoing debates about Frye, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho are discussed.     

Looking for leverage in PAC markets: Corporate and labor contributions considered

In this paper we explore the popular perception that political action committees (PACs) have substantial influence over elected legislators. We question whether the leverage in the PAC market is on the side of the contribution-maker or the contribution-taker. Analysis of the structure of PAC markets suggests most markets are sellers' markets, not buyers' markets. PAC contributions then may be more like protection money than attempts to buy votes or access. The leverage of the politician (seller) may be tempered if a substantial number of large PACs have homogeneous interests, and the ability to concentrate their contributions to the same legislators. This contention is supported by analysis of differences in labor and corporate PAC giving in the 1980 and 1984 general elections. Labor PACs, which are much larger than corporate PACs, have more homogeneous interests, give virtually all of their money to one party, and appear to have more discretion in making contribution decisions than do corporate PACs. An implication of this analysis for corporate executives is that using political action committees at the federal level may not be a strategy where corporations have a comparative advantage. — Senator Robert Dole (R-Kan.) — Senator Thomas Eaglecton (D-Mo.)     

The American Psychological Association's amicus curiae brief inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins

The use of amicus curiae briefs to inform the courts about the scientific literature requires merging scientific and legal perspectives. A brief submitted by the APA inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) demonstrates how the values of the legal system can predominate over the values of science. The brief differed from a scientific review in three ways: (1) selective use of theories only when they supported the brief's position, (2) acceptance of Hopkins's contention concerning disputed facts, and (3) incomplete representation of the empirical literature. This article examines four of the main arguments in the brief. Half of the 33 studies cited in the brief for these arguments offered no support for the brief's position. In addition, the brief made no mention of a substantial body of research (78 studies) that directly contradicts these arguments.The authors would like to thank Ralph Alexander, Terri Baumgardner, Dennis Doverspike, Rick DeShon, Jan Dorsett, Lynn Kahney, Paul Levy, Robert Lord, Karen Maher, Marty Murphy, Jackie Szmania, and Linda Subich for their comments.     

Diener dreier Herren? Kantonalbehörden und die Vollzugsvielfalt der arbeitsmarktlichen Bestimmungen im schweizerischen Asylrecht

Einer der viel beschworenen Vorteile des Föderalismus ist die Flexibilität, mit der sich zentralstaatliche Anliegen den regionalen Gegebenheiten anpassen lassen. Wir untersuchen diese Vorstellung am Beispiel des Asylrechts. Ausgangspunkt ist die Überlegung, dass die Vollzugsdelegation an die Kantone zu Prinzipal-Agent-Problemen führt und die Kantonalbehörden zu Dienern dreier Herren macht – der Bundesverwaltung, dern einheimischen Bevölkerung und regionalen Interessengruppen. Quantitativ zeigt sich, dass die Restriktivität der kantonalen arbeitsmarktlichen Ausführungsbestimmungen des schweizerischen Asylgesetzes nicht primär von der Nachfrage nach Arbeitskräften, sondern vom Einfluss ausländerfeindlicher Kräfte in den Kantonen bestimmt ist. Die Praxis der Erteilung von Arbeitsbewilligungen an Asylbewerber hingegen steht in keinem Zusammenhang zur Restriktivität der Regelungen und orientiert sich speziell in der Romandie an der arbeitsmarktlichen Lage. Auch wenn sich der Einfluss von Sonderinteressengruppen nicht nachweisen lässt, tanzen die kantonalen Entscheidungsträger so zumindest auf zwei Hochzeiten.     

Social competence during adolescence: Social sensitivity,locus of control,empathy, and peer popularity

In male and female adolescents aged 14, 15, 17, and 18 years of age, the predictive relationship between social competency and peer relations and age differences in social competence were studied. Based upon a social deficit hypothesis, linear age differences were observed in social knowledge, locus of control, and a trend in empathy. Some sex differences were found, but no sex by age interactions were observed. The predicted relationship between social competency and peer popularity was supported, but was different according to sex of the adolescent.Support for this project was provided by the Science/Education Administration of the USDA and the Utah State University Agricultural Experiment Station through the W144 Regional Research Project on Social Competency in Childhood.Received Ph.D. from Penn State University. Research interests are adolescent personality and social development.