Journal article
Doing Good Economics in the Courtroom: Thoughts on Daubert and Expert Testimony in Antitrust
The Journal of corporation law, Vol.31(2), pp.489-502
01/01/2006
Abstract
Antitrust cases present an array of factual disputes that are bewildering to the ordinary juror and often to the judge who has little experience in the area. Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows an appropriately qualified expert to testify when his or her testimony will be helpful to the trier of fact. Daubert and its progeny have the laudable goal of reducing the problem of unethical experts influencing unsophisticated juries with highly technical jargon or other sophistry. However, Daubert and its progeny are easiest to apply when least necessary, raise the danger of courts venturing into areas where their expertise is limited, and run the risk of simply providing an alternative venue for arguing and re-arguing the facts of the case. Herbert Hovenkamp concludes in The Antitrust Enterprise that exercising the power to exclude expert testimony sensibly has proven to be extraordinarily difficult.
Details
- Title: Subtitle
- Doing Good Economics in the Courtroom: Thoughts on Daubert and Expert Testimony in Antitrust
- Creators
- John SolowDaniel Fletcher
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Publication Details
- The Journal of corporation law, Vol.31(2), pp.489-502
- ISSN
- 0360-795X
- Publisher
- University of Iowa, College of Law
- Language
- English
- Date published
- 01/01/2006
- Academic Unit
- Economics
- Record Identifier
- 9984963541402771
Metrics
1 Record Views