Recorded presentation

Lissy C. Friedman, JD¹, Richard A. Daynard, JD, PhD², and Christopher N. Banthin, JD¹. (1) Northeastern University School of Law, Tobacco Control Resource Center, 102 The Fenway, Room 117, Boston, MA 02115, 617-373-2026, lfriedma@lynx.dac.neu.edu, (2) School of Law, Northeastern University, 400 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., concerning the admissible use of expert witnesses in litigation, has confers upon judges the role of "gatekeeper" in determining whether an expert witness may testify on any subject, including scientific or public health issues. This presentation will offer an analysis of the ramifications of the Daubert decision, and will identify problems that have subsequently arisen therefrom which tend to exclude public health expertise from the courtroom, particularly in the context of tobacco litigation. It will demonstrate that there is a partisan bias created by the tobacco industry and other corporate defendants against what they have termed "junk science," while giving many examples of the tobacco industry's own use of the very same scientific analytical methodology it claims to deplore.

Learning Objectives:

• Participants will gain knowledge about how to combat Defense tactics aimed at preempting Plaintiffs' use of expert testimony by showing that it is worthwhile to invest resources to challenge the Defense's experts on the same grounds, in order to level the playing field.

Keywords: Tobacco Industry, Tobacco Litigation

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.

Recorded presentation