Certified Fire Investigator Practice Exam

Which of the following cases addresses the need for peer review in scientific evidence?

1. Kumho Tire vs. Carmichael

2. Daubert vs. Merrill Dow

3. Miller vs. Benfield

4. Frye vs. U.S.

The correct answer is: Daubert vs. Merrill Dow

The case of Daubert vs. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals is pivotal in establishing the need for rigorous peer review in the context of scientific evidence presented in court. This landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court set forth a new standard for the admissibility of expert testimony and scientific evidence. The Court emphasized that the methodology and principles underlying the evidence should be subjected to peer review as a key factor in determining its reliability. In Daubert, the justices highlighted the importance of scientific scrutiny and validation through peer review processes, arguing that methodologies must be generally accepted in the scientific community instead of merely being based on anecdotal evidence or untested theories. This standard aimed to ensure that expert evidence is not only relevant but also reliable and based on sound scientific principles. The other cases listed do address various aspects of the admissibility and standards for scientific evidence, but they do not specifically focus on the peer review requirement to the same extent as the Daubert case, which has become a foundational case in defining and enforcing the standards for evaluating scientific testimony in legal proceedings.