How did the court’s ruling in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. affect the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal courts?
What will be an ideal response?
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court asserted that “general acceptance” is not an absolute prerequisite to the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. According to the Court, the Rules of Evidence assign to the trial judge the
task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.
You might also like to view...
Rules or practices relating to retention or disposal of court records is an example of an ethical problem ______.
a. resulting from policing policies b. in information sharing c. dealing with human rights issues in the criminal justice system d. in the media reporting of crime
According to Duwe and Kerschner, boot camps can, in theory, reduce prison bed space needs in the following way(s):
a. offering program graduates a reduction in time served b. decreasing the amount of time offenders spend in prison following release c. All of the above d. None of the above
______ refers to unfair testing procedures, hiring practices, job assignments, and education requirements.
a. Reasonable accommodation b. Institutional discrimination c. Bona fide occupational qualification d. Consent decree
Acts that threaten the general well-being of society and challenge accepted moral principles are defined as ___________ crime.
Fill in the blank(s) with the appropriate word(s).