Jeremy Buchman
Biographic Data
| ID | 4180316 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Jeremy Buchman |
| GIVEN NAMES | Jeremy |
| FAMILY NAME | Buchman |
| SIGNATURE | BUCHMAN J |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 2 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 2 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 2 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1998 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2007 |
| H-INDEX | 1 |
The Effects of Ideology on Federal Trial Judges' Decisions to Admit Scientific Expert Testimony
This article examines trial court rulings concerning the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the trial judge's role as a “gatekeeper” and gave trial judges substantial discretion over their scrutiny of expert testimony. Because the external constraints on admissibility rulings are minimal, one might expect that if trial judges' ideology were to play some role…
Thou Shalt Not Sit with Statisticians, Nor Commit a Social Science: How Trial Courts Address Social Science Evidence in Redistricting Cases
Debates concerning federal courts' performance in voting rights and redistricting controversies have proceeded along two paths: (1) analyses of case law and (2) studies of how judicial decisions affect minority representation. These debates, however, have lacked a focused analysis of how judicial policy-making limitations might affect courts' ability to formulate voting rights policy. While it is important to ask whether and how courts should int…
The Effects of Ideology on Federal Trial Judges' Decisions to Admit Scientific Expert Testimony
This article examines trial court rulings concerning the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the trial judge's role as a “gatekeeper” and gave trial judges substantial discretion over their scrutiny of expert testimony. Because the external constraints on admissibility rulings are minimal, one might expect that if trial judges' ideology were to play some role…
Thou Shalt Not Sit with Statisticians, Nor Commit a Social Science: How Trial Courts Address Social Science Evidence in Redistricting Cases
Debates concerning federal courts' performance in voting rights and redistricting controversies have proceeded along two paths: (1) analyses of case law and (2) studies of how judicial decisions affect minority representation. These debates, however, have lacked a focused analysis of how judicial policy-making limitations might affect courts' ability to formulate voting rights policy. While it is important to ask whether and how courts should int…
The Effects of Ideology on Federal Trial Judges' Decisions to Admit Scientific Expert Testimony
This article examines trial court rulings concerning the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the trial judge's role as a “gatekeeper” and gave trial judges substantial discretion over their scrutiny of expert testimony. Because the external constraints on admissibility rulings are minimal, one might expect that if trial judges' ideology were to play some role…
Judicial and Constitutional Studies (2 works) · Law (2 works) · Political science (2 works) · Politics (2 works) · Psychology (2 works) · Appeal (1 works) · Commit (1 works) · Discretion (1 works) · Federal Rules of Evidence (1 works) · Ideology (1 works)