Is the Expert Admissibility Game Fixed
Judicial Gatekeeping of Fire and Arson Evidence
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6090519 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rachel Dioso‐villa (0000-0002-9909-5091, Griffith University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 54-80 |
| Publication date | 2016-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0265-8240 • E-ISSN: 1467-9930 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/lapo.12047 |
| OpenAlex | W2255582249 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 43 |
Anecdotal evidence claims that in criminal cases, trial judges admit the prosecution's expert witnesses more readily than the defendants', and in civil cases the reverse is true; judges exclude plaintiffs' experts more often than civil defendants' experts. This occurs despite the fact that, with few exceptions, the same rules of admissibility apply to all parties and, in most jurisdictions, across criminal and civil cases. This article empirically tests this differential by reviewing judicial decisions to admit or exclude evidence holding the type of expert testimony constant, fire and arson evidence, across criminal and civil cases in the United States. The study examines the admissibility of fire and arson investigation experts in criminal and civil cases across all legal parties in fifty‐seven federal and state opinions in the United States. The findings offer empirical support of a bias in criminal cases and in civil cases which present expert witnesses at trial, and is less pronounced, but still evident, on appeal. Specifically, the role of the party that offers the evidence has a profound effect on whether arson evidence is admitted, even when factors around the judge's political affiliation, attorney experience, expert qualifications, and rules of evidence are taken into account
Appeal · Arson · Civil procedure · Empirical evidence · Gatekeeping · Political science · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Psychology
Science, Technology, Society, and Law
Legal versus non-legal approaches to forensic science evidence
Litigant status, judicial ideology, and the gatekeeping of expert evidence
Hearing voices
Scientific Disciplines and the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Courts
Gender, expert advice, and judicial gatekeeping in the United States
Invitation to Law and Society
Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy
The Critical Legal Studies Movement
The Cool Crucible
Expert Evidence After Daubert
What Has a Decade of Daubert Wrought
A Contextual Approach to the Admissibility of the State's Forensic Science and Medical Evidence
Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices
Picking Federal Judges
Role Perceptions and Behavior in Three U.S. Courts of Appeals
Do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988
A sociology of jurisprudence
Judges' Policy Choices and the Value Basis of Judicial Appointments
Integrated Models of Judicial Dissent
Measuring the Preferences of State Supreme Court Judges
The Interplay of Preferences, Case Facts, Context, and Rules in the Politics of Judicial Choice
A Political Regimes Approach to the Analysis of Legal Decisions
Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949–1992
The 'Haves' and the 'Have Nots
The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of United States Supreme Court Justices
Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals
The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases
Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials
Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision
The Role of Case Complexity in Judicial Decision Making
Daubert and the Exclusionary Ethos
An Original Look at Originalism
Representing Homeless Families
A Classic at 25
Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts
Do Repeat Players Behave Differently in Russia? Contractual and Litigation Behavior of Russian Enterprises
When the "Haves" Hold Court
Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead
Do the "Haves" Still Come Out Ahead? Resource Inequalities in Ideological Courts
Do The "Haves" Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970
On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making
Political Party Affiliation and Judges' Decisions
Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,55 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2026 (12) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |