| Abstract: | Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. established guidelines for screening the admissibility of scientific evidence and overruled the Frye  general acceptance doctrine. Guidelines more akin to those advocated by psychologists to assess the trustworthiness of the expert testimony were established in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence on the reliability, relevance, and prejudicial or probative nature of the information. Forensic psychological experts will have to be explicit about the scientific foundations of their opinions. The more flexible formula for the admission of scientific evidence may exert greater quality control than the Frye test, and enhance the relationship of psychology and law by eliminating some sources of controversy within the professional community over expert witnesses. Research needs flowing from the new standards are identified.Administrative Judge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Southern California, and a Mediator and Arbitrator with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services/Endispute |
