Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals
(1993) modernized the long-standing
Frye
(1923)
precedent and requires courts to make scientific
judgments. Courts, however, are not well-equipped to parse
scientific arguments. To illustrate the difficulty of applying
Daubert,
this article focuses on the controversy over
admissibility of polygraph test evidence ("lie detectors").
Reliability and validity are discussed in relation to polygraph
testing and the
Daubert
criteria. Although the validity of
polygraph test results has been examined across many studies, none
satisfy necessary methodological criteria and accuracy rates are
unpredictable. This analysis points to the need for social
scientists and courts to develop a mutually understood language to
assess validity claims. Courts must have the ability to weight
scientific evidence and, although they need not become amateur
scientists, they must become sophisticated consumers.