Antagonist: The trial lawyer's defense of the expert witness

References

1. • Schifrin Barry S.
   Polemics in Perinatology: Justice and the Medical Expert Witness.
   9 Journal of Perinatology No. 2. 1989; (M.D.): 207
   • Google Scholar
2. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.225. 1986;
   • Google Scholar

3. For an excellent discussion of this issue, see The Use and Misuse of Expert Evidence in the Courts, 77 Judicature, No. 2, at 68.

   • Google Scholar
4. • Arntz Rickee
   Competency of Medical Expert Witness: Standards and Qualifications.
   24 Creighton Law Review 1359. 1991;
   • Google Scholar
5. In mass toxic torts the determination of the essential cause in fact element depends virtually altogether on scientific testimony. 1988 (M. Dore, LAW OF TOXIC TORTS, § 27)
   • Google Scholar

6. Elam v. Alcolac, 765 S.W.2d 2 (Mo. App. 1988). In Alcolac, the trial court allowed testimony regarding “chemically induced AIDS” and testimony regarding the residents' increased risk of cancer as a result of their exposure to five chemicals designated as toxic by the EPA. Even though the expert witnesses appeared to be qualified, the Court of Appeals rejected this evidence as not sufficiently quantifiable and inflammatory to the jury. The case was therefore remanded on the issue of damages.

   • Google Scholar

7. Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988). Diagnosis of disease consistent with exposure to toxicants is the domain of medicine, especially environmental and occupational medicine.

   • Google Scholar

8. Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 47, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923).

   • Google Scholar

9. 113 Sup. Ct. at 2798.

   • Google Scholar

10. 113 Sup. Ct. at 2798.

    • Google Scholar
11. • Huber Peter
    GALILEO'S REVENGE.
    (See, e.g.)1991
    • Google Scholar
12. • Huber Peter
    Junk Science in the Courtroom. July 8, 1991; (Forbes): 68
    • Google Scholar
13. • Nolan Virginia
    • Ursin Edmund
    254 Science. 1991; (Review of GALILEO'S REVENGE by Peter Huber): 1663
    • Google Scholar

14. Sheila Jasanoff, What Juries Should Know About the Sociology of Science, 77 Judicature, No. 2, P. 77

    • Google Scholar
15. • Gold Jay
    • et al.
    Dauben v. Merrell Dow: The Supreme Court Tackles Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom.
    270 JAMA No. 24. December 1993; (M.D., J.D., M.P.H.): 2964
    • Google Scholar
16. • Huber Peter
    Junk Science in the Courtroom. July 8, 1991; (Forbes): 68
    • Google Scholar

17. Jasanoff at 80.

    • Google Scholar