JuriLytics: Bringing Scientific Peer Review to Expert Testimony
David L. Faigman
*Note: The Location of this event has been changed. It will now be held in Classroom A - UC Hastings, 198 McAllister St
Under virtually all rules of admissibility for expert testimony, judges want to know either or both of two fundamental questions: (1) Do the methods and principles underlying the proffered scientific opinion accord with accepted scientific research standards (i.e., Daubert); and (2) Is the scientific evidence or technique generally accepted among other scientists (Daubert & Frye). JuriLytics provides the answers to these questions in a way that a party’s experts cannot. JuriLytics is able to do this through the process of scientific peer review.
The parties to litigation cannot answer the fundamental questions regarding the scientific soundness of their position for a variety of reasons. First of all, judges expect that, and are rarely disappointed in that, the parties’ experts are hired to support the party’s respective litigating positions. That is where the term “hired gun” comes from. Second, even if the parties’ experts provided convincing methodological arguments for the reliability and validity of their opinions, judges on average have little to no understanding of science. They look for proxies for trustworthiness, and the parties’ experts do not have standing to provide these to them.
JuriLytics can answer these questions by creating a procedure for integrating scientific peer review into the litigation process. We do this by providing a panel of expert peer reviews that provide judges with a spectrum of expertise from the respective field. JuriLytics’ reviewers are the top academic talent in their fields and do not ordinarily (and usually never) testify in court. Moreover, JuriLytics’ reviewers do not know what side they are on. In scientific parlance, they are “blind to the condition.” Additionally, JuriLytics executives do not select the reviewers; editors from the top impact journals in the scientists’ respective fields rank order the best reviewers by subject area, reputation, and distinction. Thus, the editors do not know what side they are selecting for. In scientific parlance, this creates a “double-blind” process to ensure objectivity, neutrality and lack of bias.
In this Consortium Workshop, Professor David Faigman will discuss the origination of the idea behind JuriLytics and his efforts to bring this idea to fruition. He will describe the mechanics of JuriLytics reviews and welcomes comments and questions on this initiative. More information about JuriLytics is available at www.jurilytics.com.
For this event we will be offering CLE credit.
The O'Brien Center for Scholarly Publications is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. Please RSVP with your state bar number and address to Ellen Studer at email@example.com.