Some post-Daubert trial tribulations of a simple country judge: Behavioral science evidence in trial courts

This article is written from the unique perspective of a rural trial court judge dealing with scientific evidence. It compares Frye and Daubert, finding them not so different in theory, once the general acceptance concept is properly understood. It notes the difficulty that Frye creates in the use of behavioral science evidence. It proposes applying Fryel/Daubert only to a Limited aspect of clinician testimony. The application of the expert evidence rules is discussed through the depiction of a trial in a rural juvenile court protective action, based loosely on an action tried to the author, followed by discussion of special jury trial considerations. This article concludes that junk science problems have not been created by faulty rules of evidence, but by faulty judicial performance and proposes an approach to a solution.