Publication Date
2013
Abstract
An expert's testimony at a pretrial Daubert hearing is
frequently supported by professional writings. Technical
literature is employed by litigants to buttress controversial
scientific theories and research. By way of example, a
plaintiff's attorney may urge that an alleged toxic
substance caused his or her client's cancer. The objective
in providing the court with learned texts and articles is to
convince the trial judge to admit expert opinions that
support causation. This Article reports appellate opinions
that strongly encourage production of professional
writings in the pretrial context. Indeed, in several cases
the absence of published research resulted in defeat of a
party's case. The Article then turns to the trial stage of the
process. Scientific literature that was of central
importance in the pretrial stages takes on a diminished
role. The Article identifies factors that may account for
this phenomenon. It concludes by positing the observation
that pretrial practice is the center of gravity of modern
litigation. Summoning corroborative scientific literature
can be the key to success in the vital arena of pretrial
advocacy.
Recommended Citation
Carlson, Ronald L.
(2013)
"The Curious Case of Differing Literary Emphases: The Contrast Between the Use of Scientific Publications at Pretrial Daubert Hearings and at Trial,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 47:
No.
3, Article 8.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol47/iss3/8