Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Case Analysis

The Parties Who Were Involved in the Case

The plaintiffs who included Daubert, other minors, their parents, and Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc. as the defendant were the parties who were involved in the Dauber case (Smith, 2009). In their claim, the plaintiffs alleged that the drug that the company had sold to their parents during pregnancy caused birth defects, which made them suffer from limb reduction.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Facts of the Case

Throughout the context of presenting their claim to the court of the law, the plaintiffs claimed that Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was responsible for the defects that occurred, as they were caused when the medicine manufactured by the company was ingested to the pregnant mothers. Initially, the company had advised the parents that when they consume Bendectin, the drug would prevent them from morning sickness. However, the medicine had negative implications on the mothers of the children because upon taking Bendectin, they suffered limb reduction as a condition that occurs during pregnancy. For Merrell Dow to prove that the plaintiffs' allegations were not justifiable, the company the court with 30 studies that involved 130,000 patients who had consumed Bendectin (Smith, 2009). The defendant used these studies to show that the drugs were safe for human consumption, but none of their records revealed a statistical link between Bendectin and birth defects. However, the plaintiffs' countered with the defendant's argument in which they requested for a reanalysis of the studies to demonstrate the link between Bendectin and birth defects. The trial court refused to consider the evidence that the petitioners presented, which made them give a summary judgment in favor of the company.

After the judgment by the federal court, the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case advanced through the U.S. Supreme Court through an appeal by the petitioners. When the Supreme Court reviewed the case and the evidence from either side, the court ruled that evidence that the plaintiffs were presenting was insufficient to allow the court to conclude that the company acted contrary to the law (McIntosh & Cates, 2009). Finally, in the case f Bendictin, Merrell emerged as the winner, in which the Supreme Court requested the district court to grant another summary judgment. Although the Daubert case continued to be in trails in different courts, the pharmaceutical company never lost a case.

Legal Issues

From the content of the case and the court trials, the legal issue that one can identify in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals is related to the testimony that the petitioners offered. Conversely, since the court declared that the federal trial judges are the gatekeepers of evidence in forensic cases, the legal issue regarding the Daubert is that to make a ruling the judges should have evaluated whether the plaintiff's testimony was relevant or sufficient to be relied on before making a judgment.

Impact of the Case on Forensic Evidence

The Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case had severe implications on forensic scientific evidence. According to Fradella, O'Neill, & Fogary (2003), in many years, forensic evidence was being used as an indication to support cases relating to scientific actions, but after the Daubert case, forensic science was reevaluated and even excluded in some cases. Equally, after the completion of the case, many legal practitioners were expecting the judicial system would call for expansion of using the scientific evidence in the court during trials. Contrarily, the court required the judges' ruling cases relating to science to apply certain standards by excluding scientific evidence or experimental techniques that may be needed to support the ruling decisions. Although the acceptance of forensic science continues to grow, the Daubert decision by the Supreme Court affected the admissibility of scientific evidence in the court as based on the opinion that was presented in the trail, public members and administrative staffs have questioned the flexibility and reliability of forensic evidence.

Comparing Daubert and Frye Case

The case selected for comparison is Frye v. the United States. In this case, Mr. Frye who was referred to as the appellant was charged with murder. When the case was brought to the trail, Mr. Frye was held inadmissible by the court, whereby he was convicted for committing second-degree murder (Burke, 1994). In the context of making a ruling, the court excluded the scientific evidence about the testimony that the plaintiff offered in the court of law.

However, the Daubert and Frye case tend to have different grounds, mainly when one looks at the proceedings and the way the evidence in each case was presented. For instance, in the Frye case, the evidence was based on the testimony of experts and scientific experience. On the other hand, the Daubert case was based on technical and expert knowledge. Although the aspect of misusing testimonies was regarded as the primary reason why the plaintiffs did not win, the instances navigated the standards of admissibility for people giving out their statements in the court. From the allegations and ruling that was presented in both cases, it is evident courts accept scientific evidence based on data, facts, and valid principles within the legal system.

References

Burke, B. W. (1994). The admissibility of novel scientific evidence in New York State: Has New York been left out to Frye. Pace Law Review, 15(2), 539-574.

Fradella, H. F., O'Neill, L., & Fogary, A. (2003). The impact of Daubert on forensic science. Pepperdine Law Review, 31(2), 323-362.

McIntosh, W. V., & Cates, C. L. (2009). Multi-party litigation: The strategic context. UBC Press.Smith, A. C. (2009). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, 1-4.