These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
2. Judicial gatekeeping and the social construction of the admissibility of expert testimony. Merlino ML, Murray CI, Richardson JT. Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(2):187-206. PubMed ID: 18344168 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Ten years after Daubert: the status of the states. Keierleber JA, Bohan TL. J Forensic Sci; 2005 Sep; 50(5):1154-63. PubMed ID: 16225224 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decision making trends. Shapiro DL, Mixon L, Jackson M, Shook J. Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015 Sep; 42-43():149-53. PubMed ID: 26341310 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. What has a decade of Daubert wrought? Berger MA. Am J Public Health; 2005 Sep; 95 Suppl 1():S59-65. PubMed ID: 16030340 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Representation and re-presentation in litigation science. Jasanoff S. Environ Health Perspect; 2008 Jan; 116(1):123-9. PubMed ID: 18197311 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done? Kaufman HH. Sci Justice; 2001 Jan; 41(1):7-20. PubMed ID: 11215302 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law's scientific age. Faigman DL, Monahan J. Annu Rev Psychol; 2005 Jan; 56():631-59. PubMed ID: 15709949 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]