4 categories of admissibility vs. weight - Daubert

Distinguishing Admissibility vs. Weight: Our Peer Review Process

Daubert has two fundamental flaws. First, as “amateur scientists,” judges are not well-prepared to analyze expert admissibility. Second, even if they were well-prepared, Daubert and its progeny have no principled approach to allow judges to differentiate issues of “admissibility” versus “weight.” Indeed, the circuits have created increasingly inconsistent and confusing law in an attempt to distinguish admissibility and weight.

JuriLytics uses blind peer review to solve both problems. Litigators can use blind peer review to give judges access to highly credible information supporting their motions to exclude. To distinguish admissibility vs. weight, our peer review process utilizes a unique four-part framework designed to parse expert opinions in the most logically consistent and compelling manner for Daubert.

This white paper focuses on our framework, which aims to harmonize legal and scientific sensibilities in order to revamp and reinvigorate the Daubert argument.

The underlying premise of our framework is simple: expert analysis that transcends the case should be subject to admissibility. This analysis might involve general science, methodologies, and their application to the case which have legal implications beyond the case at hand. Expert analysis that is based on case-specific facts should be left for the jury to weigh. Weighing case-specific disputes, after all, is the main role of a jury.

Scientific Peer Review for Litigation - Daubert

Bringing Scientific Peer Review to Scientific Evidence

The venerable process of scientific peer review can help judges evaluate a wide range of scientific subjects, says Professor David L. Faigman. This approach, though "unconventional," is consistent with the lessons of Frye, which calls upon judges to admit scientific opinions based on generally accepted principles, and Daubert, which requires judges to examine the methods and principles underlying the proffered scientific opinion, the author says. Faigman discusses the structural challenges to bringing "good science" to courts, and concludes scientific peer review will provide a "systematic process by which scientists from the relevant field can help inform courts regarding the bases of proffered science."