Thoughts on 'gatekeeping'.I was encouraged to see that the September issue of TRIAL was devoted to "Experts and Evidence" and that the article by Bert Black discussed the fact that "something has gone wrong with Daubert." [Learn the Science in Your Cases, Sept. 2003, at 18.] Since Daubert, federal judges have become the "gatekeepers" of justice. More and more frequently, laws, rules, and regulations have entrusted judges with a degree of power that certainly would have shocked the nation's founders and, no doubt, the judges' own legal mentors. Daubert holds that a judge has the right to rule on the admissibility ad·mis·si·ble adj. 1. That can be accepted; allowable: admissible evidence. 2. Worthy of admission. ad·mis of expert evidence based on whether he or she perceives the evidence to be "valid." The criteria set forth in Daubert and its progeny PROGENY - 1961. Report generator for UNIVAX SS90. concerning when evidence should be admitted are the same ones that any juror juror n. any person who actually serves on a jury. Lists of potential jurors are chosen from various sources such as registered voters, automobile registration or telephone directories. with common sense would use in evaluating the weight that should be given an expert's testimony: What is the scientific basis for the evidence? Are there objective tests? Has the expert published in his or her area of expertise? Daubert has given federal judges an almost impossible task. Black tells us that, as attorneys, we must "learn the science" in each case in which we or our opponents present scientific evidence. Incredibly, a federal judge must learn the science in every case on his or her docket. The enormous amount of time that this effort must take is truly mind-boggling. This trend can perhaps be traced to Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison, case decided in 1803 by the U.S. Supreme Court. William Marbury had been commissioned justice of the peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams in the "midnight appointments" at the very end of his administration. , in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared itself to be the final arbiter of what laws are constitutional. It is a cornerstone of our jurisprudence jurisprudence (j  r'ĭspr d`əns), study of the nature and the origin and development of law. that
the Supreme Court determines what laws pass constitutional muster, but
the practicality of district court judges determining the validity of a
case on grounds other than purely legal ones is suspect.
A final thought: Have we truly considered the impact of having lifetime-appointed judges act The Judges Act of 1925 was an act of the United States Congress that enabled the Supreme Court to give precedence to cases of national importance. It was passed while former President William Howard Taft served as Chief Justice. as "gatekeepers," evaluating the substantive validity of lawsuits? There are strong arguments to be made for the lifetime appointment of judges, but none of them is based on the idea that such a system is more democratic than electing judges to the bench. There are strong arguments to be made for a judicial "gatekeeper In an H.323 IP telephony or video environment, a gatekeeper is a device that manages domains and provides call control. It is used to translate user names into IP addresses, to authenticate users and to manage network resources. " to bar "junk" science from the courtroom, but none of them is based on the assumption that jurors can make valid judgments about such evidence. We proclaim pro·claim tr.v. pro·claimed, pro·claim·ing, pro·claims 1. To announce officially and publicly; declare. See Synonyms at announce. 2. that we want to bring democracy to the world. Are we afraid to bring it to our own courts? Armando A. Pandola Jr. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion