1306

I'd object as follows:

"The proposed testimony has not been shown to be scientifically reliable under Daubert. No foundation has been laid that as to the basis of the study, the sample size, the error rate, the statistical analysis used, or that this "profile" theory has been vetted through the peer review and publication process.”

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 1306.

Dr. Crane proposes to testify that her research shows that 100% of men served with protective orders commit a violent act within 5 days. The defense objects under Daubert, that the testimony is unreliable because all the leading treatises say that accurate predictions of violence are impossible and other studies show that fewer than 30% of men under protective orders do anything violent. The prosecution says this is just a dispute among psychologists, and many disagree with the treatises.

What should the judge do?

a) Exclude the testimony altogether
b) Admit the testimony, but permit the defense to introduce the treatises to impeach the credibility of the testimony. See Rule 803(18).

When you think you know the answer, click here.