Chapple v. Ganger
In the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993), it was ruled that for scientific testimony to be admissible, it has to be (a) scientifically valid and (b) relevant to the case at hand. The court provided a list of guidelines intended to aid in the determination of scientific validity (e.g., peer reviewed, falsifiability, acceptable error rate, etc.). The Daubert ruling along with subsequent related rulings (e.g., General Electric v. Joiner1997; Kumho Tire v. Carmichael1999) generated significant debate among psychologists and neuropsychologists and many other disciplines. Specifically, Reed (1996) viewed the Daubertruling to necessitate the utilization of commercially available fixed batteries only, such as the Halstead-Reitan Battery. However, most neuropsychologists employ a flexible battery approach; thus, contradicting Reed’s assertions implying that most neuropsychologists would not be suited for involvement in forensic work. In support of his conclusion,...
References and Readings
- Chapple v. Ganger, 851 F. Supp. 1481, E.D. of Washington (1994).Google Scholar
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).Google Scholar
- Greiffenstein, M. F., & Cohen, L. (2005). Neuropsychology and the law: Principles of productive attorney-neuropsychologists relations. In G. Larrabee (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).Google Scholar