QUESTIONING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF NONSCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY AFTER DAUBERT: THE NEED FOR INCREASED JUDICIAL GATEKEEPING TO ENSURE THE RELIABILITY OF ALL EXPERT TESTIMONY

This article examines the difficulty of finding a proper standard for evaluating non-scientific expert testimony. It analyzes the legal standard for the admission of expert testimony as set out in the Federal Rule of Evidence and the Daubert case. It reviews a split in courts as to how to apply these standards to non-scientific expert testimony. It ends with some proposals for the application of Daubert to non-scientific expert testimony and suggests an amendment to the Federal Rules of evidence

The Medical Toxicologist in an Albanian Court: Ethical and Legal Issues

Recent developments in the field of forensic medicine and the judicial practice are both factors influencing considerably toward an increasing role of toxicologists in court hearings and litigation processes. The role of forensic toxicologist has been until a few decennia before a prerogative of the medico-legal specialists, but meanwhile a subspecialty of the general toxicology seems to have been created. Vis-à-vis the increasing presence of toxicologists in penal procedures of poisoning and intoxications, Albanian courts have created their own precedents and bylaws, regulating the presence, the opinion taking, and the relative importance such an expert opinion will have on the final sentence. Due to a multiplicity of factors, legal terminology with regard to drugs of abuse needs to be revised and parallel to such a revision a better defining of the role of expert toxicologist as a collector and interpreter of the scientific proofs seems necessary. Overlapping competencies with judicial bodies and confusing legislative measures will do nothing else but complicate issues that should be and can be easily resolved, through simple and appropriate interventions at different levels

(Un)Appealing Deference to the Tax Court

The U.S. Tax Court (Tax Court), which hears the vast majority of litigated federal tax cases, occupies an unusual place in the federal government. It is a federal court located outside of the judicial branch, but its decisions are appealable to the federal courts of appeals. This odd structure, coupled with the court\u27s history as an independent agency in the executive branch, can give rise to important questions, such as the standard of review that should apply to its decisions. In particular, should the courts of appeals treat Tax Court decisions the same as those of district courts in tax cases, or should they apply a more deferential standard analogous to review of agency decisions, as the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1943 in Dobson v. Commissioner? Answering the standard-of-review question implicates issues of both law and policy. Contrary to some scholarship, this Article argues that, as a doctrinal matter, no vestige of the Dobson rule remains and that courts of appeals must apply the same standard of judicial review that they apply to district courts in nonjury cases. The Article further argues that appellate review theory supports that result. The Dobson rule was a largely instrumental one designed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson to reduce the volume of tax litigation. Although tax litigation is unusually decentralized and the Tax Court has unique expertise, those differences do not support departing from the policies underlying appellate review. Appellate courts therefore should not defer to the interpretations of the Tax Court any more than they do to those of the district courts