David L Faigman
Biographic Data
| ID | 4127072 |
|---|---|
| NAME | David L Faigman |
| GIVEN NAMES | David L |
| FAMILY NAME | Faigman |
| SIGNATURE | FAIGMAN D L |
| AFFILIATIONS | Hastings College of the Law, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 9 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 21 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 9 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1995 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 3 |
Ineffectiveness of the “consistent with” judicial limitation on forensic firearm identification testimony
OBJECTIVE: Judicial limitations on forensic firearm identification testimony aim to prevent overstated conclusions declaring a definitive match (or "identification") between bullets or cartridge cases and a specific firearm. The Maryland Supreme Court has ruled that examiners may state only that markings are "consistent with" those from a particular firearm. Another judicial ruling held that examiners may state only that the defendant's firearm "…
Behavioral Research in the Shadow of Plea Bargaining
Reyna, Reed, Meschkow, Calderon, and Helm experimentally extend to plea bargaining in criminal cases findings from numerous other behavioral contexts that how the bargain is framed affects decisions reached. Framing effects undermine the presumption among many in the law that plea decisions will be rational and made “in the shadow of trial.” This is an important extension of the psychological literature. However, given the complexity of the proce…
On the Causes of Effects: Response to Pearl
We welcome Professor Pearl's comment on our original article, Dawid et al. Our focus there on the distinction between the 'Effects of Causes' (EoC) and the 'Causes of Effects' (CoE) concerned two fundamental problems, one a theoretical challenge in statistics and the other a practical challenge for trial courts. In this response, we seek to accomplish several things. First, using Pearl's own notation, we attempt to clarify the similarities and di…
Fitting Science Into Legal Contexts: Assessing Effects of Causes or Causes of Effects
Law and science share many perspectives, but they also differ in important ways. While much of science is concerned with the effects of causes (EoC), relying upon evidence accumulated from randomized controlled experiments and observational studies, the problem of inferring the causes of effects (CoE) requires its own framing and possibly different data. Philosophers have written about the need to distinguish between the 'EoC' and 'the CoE' for h…
Authors’ Response to Comments on Fitting Science Into Legal Contexts: Assessing Effects of Causes or Causes of Effects
Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It
A group of nonscience forensic sciences has developed over the past century. These are fields within the broader forensic sciences that have little or no basis in actual science. They are not applications of established basic sciences, they have not systematically tested their own hypotheses, and they make unsupported assumptions and exaggerated claims. This review explains the nature and origins of those nonscience forensic fields, which include…
Expert Evidence After Daubert
Daubert stands for a trilogy of Supreme Court cases as well as revisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Together they represent American law's most recent effort to filter expert evidence offered at trial. This review begins by placing the Daubert trilogy in the context of earlier judicial efforts to solve the screening problem, which began well before the twentieth century, and then provides a brief explication of evidence law under Daubert. …
The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge
The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge
Fitting Science Into Legal Contexts: Assessing Effects of Causes or Causes of Effects
Law and science share many perspectives, but they also differ in important ways. While much of science is concerned with the effects of causes (EoC), relying upon evidence accumulated from randomized controlled experiments and observational studies, the problem of inferring the causes of effects (CoE) requires its own framing and possibly different data. Philosophers have written about the need to distinguish between the 'EoC' and 'the CoE' for h…
Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It
A group of nonscience forensic sciences has developed over the past century. These are fields within the broader forensic sciences that have little or no basis in actual science. They are not applications of established basic sciences, they have not systematically tested their own hypotheses, and they make unsupported assumptions and exaggerated claims. This review explains the nature and origins of those nonscience forensic fields, which include…
Expert Evidence After Daubert
Daubert stands for a trilogy of Supreme Court cases as well as revisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Together they represent American law's most recent effort to filter expert evidence offered at trial. This review begins by placing the Daubert trilogy in the context of earlier judicial efforts to solve the screening problem, which began well before the twentieth century, and then provides a brief explication of evidence law under Daubert. …
The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge
Behavioral Research in the Shadow of Plea Bargaining
Reyna, Reed, Meschkow, Calderon, and Helm experimentally extend to plea bargaining in criminal cases findings from numerous other behavioral contexts that how the bargain is framed affects decisions reached. Framing effects undermine the presumption among many in the law that plea decisions will be rational and made “in the shadow of trial.” This is an important extension of the psychological literature. However, given the complexity of the proce…
The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge
The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge
Expert Evidence After Daubert
Daubert stands for a trilogy of Supreme Court cases as well as revisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Together they represent American law's most recent effort to filter expert evidence offered at trial. This review begins by placing the Daubert trilogy in the context of earlier judicial efforts to solve the screening problem, which began well before the twentieth century, and then provides a brief explication of evidence law under Daubert. …
Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It
A group of nonscience forensic sciences has developed over the past century. These are fields within the broader forensic sciences that have little or no basis in actual science. They are not applications of established basic sciences, they have not systematically tested their own hypotheses, and they make unsupported assumptions and exaggerated claims. This review explains the nature and origins of those nonscience forensic fields, which include…
Authors’ Response to Comments on Fitting Science Into Legal Contexts: Assessing Effects of Causes or Causes of Effects
Fitting Science Into Legal Contexts: Assessing Effects of Causes or Causes of Effects
Law and science share many perspectives, but they also differ in important ways. While much of science is concerned with the effects of causes (EoC), relying upon evidence accumulated from randomized controlled experiments and observational studies, the problem of inferring the causes of effects (CoE) requires its own framing and possibly different data. Philosophers have written about the need to distinguish between the 'EoC' and 'the CoE' for h…
On the Causes of Effects: Response to Pearl
We welcome Professor Pearl's comment on our original article, Dawid et al. Our focus there on the distinction between the 'Effects of Causes' (EoC) and the 'Causes of Effects' (CoE) concerned two fundamental problems, one a theoretical challenge in statistics and the other a practical challenge for trial courts. In this response, we seek to accomplish several things. First, using Pearl's own notation, we attempt to clarify the similarities and di…
Ineffectiveness of the “consistent with” judicial limitation on forensic firearm identification testimony
OBJECTIVE: Judicial limitations on forensic firearm identification testimony aim to prevent overstated conclusions declaring a definitive match (or "identification") between bullets or cartridge cases and a specific firearm. The Maryland Supreme Court has ruled that examiners may state only that markings are "consistent with" those from a particular firearm. Another judicial ruling held that examiners may state only that the defendant's firearm "…
Behavioral Research in the Shadow of Plea Bargaining
Reyna, Reed, Meschkow, Calderon, and Helm experimentally extend to plea bargaining in criminal cases findings from numerous other behavioral contexts that how the bargain is framed affects decisions reached. Framing effects undermine the presumption among many in the law that plea decisions will be rational and made “in the shadow of trial.” This is an important extension of the psychological literature. However, given the complexity of the proce…
Epistemology (6 works) · Sociology (6 works) · Philosophy (5 works) · Political science (5 works) · Computer Science (4 works) · History (4 works) · Psychology (4 works) · Criminology (3 works) · Law (3 works) · Law (3 works)