Expert Analysis/Opinion: Keep Junk Science Away From Juries

Law360 has published an Expert Analysis/Opinion, Keep Junk Science Away From Juries, written by ALF Executive Vice President & General Counsel Larry Ebner. His article explains that juries are being called upon to assess an increasingly broad range of scientific issues——ranging from medical causation in class-action/mass-action product liability litigation to the alleged effects of fossil-fuel emissions in climate-change damages suits. For this reason, trial judges’ “gatekeeper” role, i.e., ensuring that juries only hear expert testimony that is scientifically sound, has become more important than ever.

Read Larry Ebner’s Law360 Expert Analysis Opinion article: Keep Junk Science Away from Juries.

The U.S. Supreme Court emphasized trial judges’ responsibility to exclude unreliable expert testimony in its Daubert trilogy of cases, in which ALF participated as amicus curiae on behalf of renowned scientists, one of whom was quoted in Daubert. But using the current wave of talcum-powder product liability litigation as an example, the article points out that some trial courts recently have shirked their gatekeeper duty and allowed juries to award breathtaking amounts of compensatory and punitive damages based on  scientifically flimsy testimony. This is all the more reason for appellate courts to review and reject jury verdicts based on junk science since they deprive defendants of the right to due process.

ALF long has been one of the nation’s foremost advocates for sound science in judicial and regulatory proceedings. Most recently, ALF has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review  mass-action talc litigation  where the defendant, Johnson & Johnson, was deprived of due process in several ways, including because a Missouri state-court trial judge allowed the jury to hear unreliable scientific testimony regarding an alleged link between women’s personal use of talcum powder and ovarian cancer. In another recent case, ALF filed an amicus brief arguing that state-law climate-change damages suits, insofar as they are not barred by the political question doctrine or federal preemption, should be adjudicated in federal courts, not state courts.

Scroll to Top