The Admissibility of Expert Testimony in the United States, the Commonwealth, and Elsewhere

As experts have become more essential to the determination of important legal decisions, courts have attempted both to allow important evidence to be available to legal decision-makers and to limit the “junk science” which enters the courtroom. This chapter explores the differences that exist in divergent legal systems’ attempts to grapple with the admissibility of expert testimony. It offers a critique of existing legal standards in the United States, Canada, Australia, England, and the Netherlands. In the end, it argues that while legal standards that control these issues differ considerably from country to country, factors outside the standards themselves often determine whether expert testimony in a particular case is admitted or rejected.