Daubert vs Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals - Research Paper Example

? Introduction: Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals is a case where the plaintiffs suffered a defect at birth. In their accusation against the company, the plaintiffs told the court that the company manufactured drugs which were responsible for causing the limb reduction defects they had. This is because their mothers took the drugs during their periods of pregnancy. The plaintiffs in this case were Daubert, and other minors. This paper is an opinion paper. It examines the role of technology in a criminal case, and specifically forensic technology. In analyzing the role of technology in a criminal or civil case, this paper analyzes the case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, giving out the facts of the case, and taking a position on whether to admit or discard forensic evidence in a civil or criminal case (Jenkins and Schuller, 2007). The opinion of this paper is that it is important to admit forensic evidence in a criminal or civil trial. However, there must be guidelines that the court must use in identifying the type of forensic evidence to use. For instance, the evidence under consideration must satisfy scientific organization that it is reliable and accurate. To do this, the process of collecting the evidence must pass the various tests that scientific organizations have put in place for purposes of determining the relevance, and reliability of a forensic evidence. This is a position that the courts took in the case involving Frye vs. United States (1923). In this case, the court gave a ruling that scientific evidence is admissible in a trial court on if it gains acceptance from the scientific field that the evidence comes from (Dobbin, Gotoski, Eyre, Dahir, Merlina, and Richardson, 2007). However, in 1975 the Federal Rules of Evidence made trial judges to disregard the Frye laws while determining whether to allow the use of forensic evidence in a civil or criminal case. The judges in the case of Daubert vs., Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals also agreed with this argument. In their opinion, the Federal Rules of evidence were superior to principles established under the case law of Frye vs. United States (Jenkins and Schuller, 2007). This paper identifies the facts of the Daubert case, the issue under consideration, and the opinion of the judges. After doing this, this paper takes a position on whether to use forensic evidence in a criminal trial. Facts of the case: In this case, the minors who are plaintiff suffered from deformities after their mothers took drugs that Dow Merrel Pharmaceuticals manufactured. The drug in question was Bendectin. The experts of the plaintiff gave evidence in the court arguing that the drugs of the company indeed caused the reduction in the limbs of the minors, resulting to the deformities that they had (Dobbin et al, 2007). The evidence that Daubert and other minors brought before the courts was based on the studies of the effects of the drugs in animals. However, their methods of study did not gain any acceptance within the relevant scientific field of study. On the other hand, Dow Merrel Company managed to prove to the court that there isn’t any scientific study that links Bendectin to birth deformities. The United States Federal Drug Authority also agrees with the notion that the drug under consideration does not cause any side effects on minors or pregnant women. On this basis therefore, the authority approves the use of the drug by expectant women (Lyle, 2012). Decision of the Court: The court made a ruling that the testimony given by the plaintiff’s experts was not admissible as evidence before the court. The court was of the opinion that it is difficult for the judges to identify what is scientific theory of fact when it comes to a testimony that an expert presents before a trial court. On this basis therefore, the court relied on Federal Rules of Evidence number 702 to determine whether to admit a testimony from an expert or not. These principles under rule 702 are (Levett and Kovera, 2008); The scientific evidence in question is acceptable within the scientific community. The method or research has passed through peer reviews. Whether it is possible to test the evidence the expert produces in the trial court. Whether there is a known or potential threat of error whose percentage is acceptable. In the judge’s perspective, the testimony of the plaintiff’s experts did not satisfy the provisions of rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. For instance, the research of the plaintiffs experts have not been reviewed by their peers, or published in any scientific publication that talks of the issue under consideration. On this basis, the scientific evidence that the plaintiffs experts gave was unacceptable within the scientific community (Lyle, 2012). On this basis therefore, the courts could not allow this testimony, and they had to dismiss the case. Opinion of the Paper: In my own opinion, the decision by this court of not admitting the testimony by the plaintiff expert was right and justifiable. I will give and expound on two main reasons as to why this decision by the trial judges was legal and right. The first reason is the methods used in arriving at the scientific knowledge under consideration. The courts can only admit scientific evidence that emanates from a scientific method of acquiring information. This involves creation of hypotheses, experiments, evaluations, confirmations and peer review evaluation. It is important to follow these processes because they will help in ascertaining the reliability of a body of scientific knowledge. Rule 702 of the Federal Evidence act denotes that for a judge to admit a scientific testimony, then the person giving the testimony must prove that the methods used in deriving the information were scientific in nature (Levett and Kovera, 2008). In the case of Daubert vs. Merrel Dow pharmaceuticals, the experts of the plaintiff failed to prove that the knowledge they were giving before the court satisfied all the elements of a scientific method of research. In fact, their assertions that the drugs by Merrel Dow can cause a side effect in pregnant women did not pass under any peer review evaluation. On this basis, there evidence was unreliable and the court could not admit them as pieces of evidence. Rule number 702 of the Federal Evidence act further denotes that the plaintiff has a responsibility of showing to the court on how they arrived at the conclusion of their scientific piece of knowledge (Lyle, 2012). In this case, Daubert and other minors, through their experts, failed to explain to the court on how they arrived at their conclusion on the effects of Bendectin on pregnant women. Instead they explain the effects of the substance in animals, instead of human beings. On this basis, the judges were right to dismiss the evidence in question. The second reason as to why the judges are right in refusing to admit the evidence in question is that the testimony by the plaintiff’s experts does not assist the judge or members of jury to understand how the drug under consideration affected the pregnant women, resulting to deformities of their children. Rule number 702 supports my assertion that to admit scientific evidence in a trial court, it must help the members of the trier of fact to understand the fact of the case. Members of a trier refer to the judges and members of a jury. For the scientific evidence to be helpful, it must connect to the issue under the inquiry by the courts. For example in the case Daubert vs. Merrel Dow, the scientific must prove that the drug Bendectin played a significant role in causing the limb defects on the plaintiffs (Jenkins and Schuller, 2007). In this case, the experts of the plaintiffs failed to help the court understand how the drug under consideration was a factor that made the plaintiffs to suffer from deformities. They failed to prove to the court that the women who took the drug risked bearing children with a limb reduction defect. They could not prove to the court that the defects on their limbs were not caused by other factors other than the Bendectin drug. This is because children whose mothers did not take the drug can also have deformities in their limbs. However, other people will argue that the judges made an error in dismissing the evidence in question, and failing to use the 1923 Frye laws. In the case Frye vs. United States of America, the court gave a ruling that the opinion of a scientific expert must be generally acceptable by the relevant scientific body under consideration. For an evidence to meet this standard, the expert must prove that the procedures, techniques and principles of gathering the evidence satisfy the scientific method of inquiry. In my own opinion, this discussion by those who are against the Daubert principles is uncalled for. This is because the court rulings of the 1923 case of Frye vs. United States are also incorporated in the 1975 Federal Evidence rules. However, they are incorporated in a manner that is flexible, and that can solve emerging scientific issues. For instance, rule number 702 denotes that for a court to admit scientific evidence, the person giving the testimony must prove that he or she used a scientific method of inquiry in gathering the information (Jenkins and Schuller, 2007). On this basis, the decision by the judges in Daubert vs. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals is justifiable by the law. A common law principle that supports my assertions is found in the case Kumho Tire vs. Carmichael. In this case, the judge was of the opinion that the Daubert principles apply to all testimonies that involve an expert. The evidence can either be scientific or non-scientific. According to the judges in this case, rule number 702 of the Federal Rule of Evidence does not limit a judge in applying the principles of the rules of evidence to scientific evidence alone (Lyle, 2012). On this note therefore, the Daubert principles will also apply to the evidence given by an expert which is not scientific. In other words, the Judge in this case agreed with the principles that the judges established to guide the admission of evidence by an expert in a trial court. Another common case principle that strongly supports my assertion is found in the case involving General electric co vs. Joiner. In this case, the judge gave a ruling that any evidence that comes from an expert that shows gaps between his conclusion and the evidence under consideration, then the court must refuse to admit the evidence. In the case of Daubert vs. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, the testimony of the experts of the plaintiff was inconsistent, and had many gaps (Dobbin, Gotoski, Eyre, Dahir, Merlina, and Richardson, 2007). For instance, the experts relied on their experiments from the animals, and while concluding their statements, they denote that the same effect the drug had on animals, is the same effect the drug had on human beings. There are numerous gaps in this testimony, because animal and human beings have different biological characteristics. On this basis, the organs in their body function differently. On this note, the drug under consideration could not have the same effect on human beings as it had on animals. Conclusion: From this paper, we can denote that the main issue under consideration in the case of Daubert vs. Merrel Company is whether the evidence by the experts of the plaintiff was admissible in the trial court or not. This paper denotes that the judges were right in refusing to admit the evidence that came from the experts of the plaintiff. This is because the testimonies of these people failed to pass the tests established by the Federal Rules of Evidence. In supporting the decision of the judges, the opinion of this paper bases its facts on two grounds. That is the experts failed to prove that they used the scientific method in collecting information. They also failed to convince the judges that the same impact the drugs had on animals, is the same one that the drug has on human beings. This paper also identifies a critic to the argument advanced by the judges. The argument is based on the decisions of the court in Frye vs. United States of America, 1923. However, this paper manages to refute the argument, and provides case that supports the opinion of the paper. References: Dobbin, S., Gotoski, S., Eyre, R., Dahir, V., Merlino, M., & Richardson, J. (2007). Federal and State Trial Judges on the Proffer and Presentation of Expert Evidence. The Justice System Journal, 28(1), 1-15. Jenkins, G., & Schuller, R. (2007). The Impact of Negative Forensic Evidence on Mock Jurors' Perceptions of a Trial of Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 369-380. Levett, L., & Kovera, M. (2008). The Effectiveness of Opposing Expert Witnesses for Educating Jurors about Unreliable Expert Evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 32(4), 363-374. Lyle, D. P. (2012). Forensic science. Chicago: American Bar Association, [Criminal Justice Section]. Read More