Presentation of Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony

Chicago Lawyers Chapter & Litigation Practice Group

Speakers:

• Professor Ronald J. Allen, John Henry Wigmore Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
• Michael K. Demetrio, Partner, Law Offices of Corboy & Demetrio
• Craig A. Woods, Partner, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw

Speakers:

• Professor Ronald J. Allen, John Henry Wigmore Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
• Michael K. Demetrio, Partner, Law Offices of Corboy & Demetrio
• Craig A. Woods, Partner, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw

Criminal and civil trials in today's complex world often result in jury deliberations pivoting on expert testimony. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Daubert decision directed judges to take on the role of "gatekeeping" regarding scientific evidence and suggested criteria for determining the relevance and the reliability of scientific testimony. Since then, defendants argue that where Daubert has not been adopted in state courts or where judges fail to apply Daubert appropriately, the consequences to the company, quality of life, society and our courts can be disastrous. In addition to positing that they lose their constitutional right to have wrongs addressed, plaintiffs argue that the application of Daubert criteria means that legitimate science is rejected by courts which are not knowledgeable arbiters of what is and is not sound science.

Our panel will examine each of these perspectives and more in order to debate the question of whether or not Daubert is serving the ends of justice or justice denied.

For more details, email chicagofederalistsociety@yahoo.com.