Peer Dialogue: The Quagmire of Scientific Expert Testimony: Crumping the Supreme Court's Style

the Article argues in support of Professor Crump's critique of the Supreme Court of the United States's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Kumho Tire Co v. Carmichael. Judges are unsuited to the task of evaluating scientific inquiry and should refrain from trying to do so. When evaluating the admissibility of evidence, the courts should use a logical relevance test.