Daubert Standard Vs England Jurisdiction Essay

529 Words3 Pages

England Jurisdiction vs. Daubert Standard
Rules of evidence that England currently follows are their own jurisdiction. However, there have been numerous proposals for Daubert Standard to be implemented into the English legal system. The reasoning for these proposals is due to the fact that most expert evidence usually presented in criminal trials that are taking place in England or Wales tend to be mostly scientific. Daubert Standard is currently being utilised in the United States; it set the guidelines for expert witness testimony to be presented in court as long as it states reasoning or methodology that is scientifically valid and can properly be applied to issue presented (Legal Information Institute 2015). However, while Law Commission …show more content…

Daubert Standard addresses what are called hard sciences or exact sciences. These are fields such as chemistry or physics (Merriam-Webster 2015). These scientific fields are able to produce results based on quantifiable data, and using controlled experiments, which deem them to be more accurate (Yngvn & Wasik 2006). Other sciences, or soft sciences, do not fit into the scope of Daubert Standards and issues arise when the court is faced with determining what qualifies as soft science. For example, when dealing with forensic psychiatry, in which the experts have medical degrees, methodologies are still questioned (Westfall 2013). The reasoning that forensic psychiatry methods are questioned is due to inconsistent analysis, and even though scientifically grounded it does not fit the Daubert Standard requirements (Westfall 2013). Due to these issues, the trial courts have to determine if the evidence presented by a forensic psychiatrist is a) legitimate b) the expert’s testimony fits within the scope of forensic psychiatry, and c) properly relies on principles involved in the field (Westfall 2013). Once those inquiries are answered, is when the expert testimony is accepted as evidence (Westfall