The impact of the Daubert case on modern litigation

Numerous product liability and toxic tort verdicts were arguably unjustly made on the basis of "junk science" threatening not only justice but the workings of the American economy. This problem was expected to be solved with the application of Daubert criteria, which require the courts to determine whether an expert's testimony reflects scientific knowledge, whether his/her findings are derived by the scientific method, and whether the work product is based on good science. Moreover, the Daubert criteria were expected to have an extraordinary impact on criminal litigation because there is rarely a criminal trial that does not rely on some form of expert testimony. However, there has been some debate on how such standards should be applied to cases involving relatively new product technologies, which only recently have been approved for a specific use, when an incident occurs and for which no published articles or other peer review summaries exist. Additionally, because most violent crimes are committed by the poor and their court appointed advocates, who are overworked and under-financed, are not up to the challenge. Therefore, with the Daubert standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence in the courts alone no significant improvement is expected. The presence of a system of effective representation in criminal cases along with efforts to educate judges and courts to understand ranges of scientific evidence and to recognise the reasonableness of scientific disagreements in civil and criminal cases are of paramount importance.