Tag
This resource outlines the Daubert framework for evaluating scientific expert testimony, including the judge’s gatekeeping role and the requirements of relevance and reliability. It describes factors such as testability, peer review, error rates, standards, and general acceptance, then turns to Rule 702 and psychological testing concepts including validity and repeatability.
This resource questions when expert testimony about counterintuitive behavior is needed and presents research on what jurors know about children’s memory, suggestibility, and responses to sexual abuse. It summarizes studies reporting both accurate public understanding and areas of misconception, then discusses how the evidence may inform admissibility debates and the limits of using general research to interpret an individual case.
Often prosecution utilizes a counterintuitive “expert” to explain away problematic behaviors on the part of the complaining witness. Dr. Simpson offers a CLE training and 85-page handout on how to effectively challenge their expert.
