Abstract:
Part I of this Comment examines the causes and challenges
associated with conflicting scientific experts. Part II identifies and
distinguishes common sources of bias that may further complicate the
evaluation of dueling expert testimony. Possible solutions to these
problems are explored in Part III, leading into an explanation of
Australia’s hot tub method and an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses in Part IV. Part V discusses factors to consider in
determining whether or not particular testimony lends itself to the hot
tub procedure, while Part VI focuses specifically on ways the
procedure could further ease the evaluation of dueling scientific
expert testimony. Part VII identifies both the similarities and
differences between the American and Australian court systems, as
well as the differences that materially affect the applicability of the
hot tub in the United States. Part VIII addresses some of these
difficulties and suggests modifications to adapt the hot tub method to
the American courts.