This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Buchman, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Effects of Ideology on Federal Trial Judges' Decisions to Admit Scientific Expert Testimony

Long Island University

This article examines trial court rulings concerning the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the trial judge's role as a "gatekeeper" and gave trial judges substantial discretion over their scrutiny of expert testimony. Because the external constraints on admissibility rulings are minimal, one might expect that if trial judges' ideology were to play some role in their decision making, it might do so here. To test this expectation, I perform a binomial logit analysis of federal district court Daubert rulings in tort cases from 1983 to 2003. I find substantial support for the claim that trial judges' ideology can predict decisions on admissibility. I find less support, however, for the claim that Daubert affected trial judges' willingness to admit such testimony, and no evidence that such decisions are affected by the prospect of reversal on appeal.

Key Words: judicial behavior • trial courts • political ideology • Daubert rulings • admissibility of evidence • judicial discretion

American Politics Research, Vol. 35, No. 5, 671-693 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X07302339


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?