Research Article| Volume 124, ISSUE 2, P157-160, August 1994

Download started.


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

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Translational Research
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Schifrin Barry S.
        Polemics in Perinatology: Justice and the Medical Expert Witness.
        9 Journal of Perinatology No. 2. 1989; (M.D.): 207
      1. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.225. 1986;
      2. For an excellent discussion of this issue, see The Use and Misuse of Expert Evidence in the Courts, 77 Judicature, No. 2, at 68.

        • Arntz Rickee
        Competency of Medical Expert Witness: Standards and Qualifications.
        24 Creighton Law Review 1359. 1991;
      3. 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)
      4. 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.

      5. 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.

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

      7. 113 Sup. Ct. at 2798.

      8. 113 Sup. Ct. at 2798.

        • Huber Peter
        (See, e.g.)1991
        • Huber Peter
        Junk Science in the Courtroom. July 8, 1991; (Forbes): 68
        • Nolan Virginia
        • Ursin Edmund
        254 Science. 1991; (Review of GALILEO'S REVENGE by Peter Huber): 1663
      9. Sheila Jasanoff, What Juries Should Know About the Sociology of Science, 77 Judicature, No. 2, P. 77

        • 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
        • Huber Peter
        Junk Science in the Courtroom. July 8, 1991; (Forbes): 68
      10. Jasanoff at 80.