Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Essays

The courtroom is an establishment made to exercise justice and truth to its citizens. There are different actors that made up the courtroom. These actors include the judge, lawyers, court clerk, parole officer, court officer/bailiff. Victim representative, representatives of the state (which include mental health agencies, etc.), juries and jury commission officers, and many more. The main actors in court are the defense attorney, the district attorney (prosecutor) and the judge. These three actors

In the Shea v. Esensten case, there was a lot of information that was compared to different laws. “Mr. Shea's doctor persuaded Mr. Shea, who was then forty years old, that he was too young and did not have enough symptoms to justify a visit to a cardiologist. A few months later, Mr. Shea died of heart failure” (Shea v. Esensten, 1997). The given information brought into question, why would the doctor not make a referral for Mr. Shea? “Mr. Shea had been an employee of Seagate Technologies, Inc

Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals(1993); This case was not about polygraph, but it did something very important that affected polygraph. It loosened the rules of evidence from the 'general acceptance' Frye ruling in 1923 and stated that 'general acceptance' was NOT a necessary pre-condition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. Instead, the Daubert decision placed the decision making power in the trial judge's hands to "ensure that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation

the need to update the rules dealing with presentation of scientific evidence, and did so in the landmark ruling Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.This today is still the cited case when dealing with scientific evidence, but we must also observe what led up to Daubert, i.e. Frye and the Federal Rules of Evidence, to allow a greater understanding into the Computer Evidence v. Daubert discussion. In 1923 in the case of Frye, where the evidence in question was that obtained from a device akin to

originated in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (Bartol & Bartol, 55). In 1974, Tatiana Tarasoff’s parents asserted that the psychiatrists at Cowell Memorial Hospital had a duty to advise them or their daughter of threats of murder made by a patient of theirs. That patient ended up stabbing Tatiana Tarasoff to death. The holding of the case stated that a mental health practitioner has a duty to warn those who might be in danger by their patients (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University

Human Based Testing: The Humane Thing To Do Animal testing has existed in research since the time of Aristotle, famous philosopher and scientist, who conducted tests on animals. It is understandable that Aristotle used animal testing as in those days there existed no technological alternatives that could be used to execute experiments (Hajar [Page 1]). In the times of Aristotle, there was no modern medicine and scientists did not understand even the basics of the human body. So it is only logical

In the case of Harris v. CSX a railroad worker by the name of Ronald K. Harris filed against his employer, CSX Transportation Inc., under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act. Mr. Harris suffered from cancer, specifically multiple myeloma, which he believed was caused by his exposure to diesel exhaust fumes in his line of work. Unfortunately, after filing and while the case was pending, Mr. Harris succumbed to his cancer and legal proceedings against CSX Transportation

this chapter is the different types of crime laboratories units and what they do. The units range from biology to voiceprint analysis. Chapter one also talked about important court cases. These court cases included Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. This chapter also explained what the difference between Rigor Mortis, Livor Mortis and Algor Mortis is. Lastly, the chapter talked about the number of specialized Forensic Science services

need to be considered? The Judge plays an important role in ruling whether scientific evidence is necessary and appropriate and would decide whether the psychologist can testify about the results from DCAT . The Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) provides guidance on the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) require that the Judge ensure that “an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant

The Murder of Danielle Van Dam By: Nevethan Jeyachandran Submitted to Dr.Monica Sauer Student Number: 500-523-913 Course: Intro to Forensics (CCHY-183) December 01, 2014 Introduction The Murder of Danielle Van Dam is a gruesome case which took place in the year 2002. A 7-year old girl went missing from her bedroom in San Diego, California, on Feb1-2, 2002. Her badly decomposed body was found in a remote area far away from her home on February 27. Police suspected a neighbour