Ipse dixit refers to trial testimony accepted on the authority of the person delivering it. The US Supreme Court ruled that expert witnesses should back up their claims with peer-reviewed articles, tests, statistics, and descriptions of their methodology. Experts must maintain their role as educators, not advocates, and authorities must be experts in the applicable field. Courts recognize that experts also make mistakes, disagree with their colleagues, and sometimes deviate from commonly accepted opinions.
Ipse dixit is a Latin phrase which means “he said it himself”. In a legal context, ipse dixit refers to trial testimony that is not substantiated by other evidence but accepted on the authority of the person delivering it. In most cases where the term is used, it refers to expert testimony on matters of significant complexity or detail to secure conclusive opinions from authoritative specialists in the field. Problems have arisen, however, in distinguishing between legitimate expertise and pseudoscience. This prompted the US Supreme Court to issue several decisions emphasizing the role of the trial judge in determining the admissibility of evidence based on its reliability and relevance.
The case of Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1993 ruling resulted in a key Supreme Court decision regarding ipse dixit testimony. Concerns about the introduction of flawed science into court testimony, including opinions based on pure feelings, unreliable methodology, and personal experience, have led litigants to seek a higher court opinion regarding defined standards for expert testimony. The Supreme Court held that expert witnesses should back up their claims with peer-reviewed articles, tests, statistics, and descriptions of their methodology. The judges also ruled that trial judges should limit ipse dixit evidence and carefully examine the applicability and reliability of that evidence. These rulings have been broadened to apply even to highly subjective areas of science, where hard data may be lacking, such as psychiatry at Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. V. Carmichael.
Another form of ipse dixit that is permissible in courtrooms is a lawyer’s opening statement, in which he previews his case. Legal studies indicate that approximately 80% of jurors decide the merits of a case immediately after hearing the attorneys’ opening statements. In light of this, expert witnesses can play a significant role in preparing opening briefs for attorneys that accurately represent their expertise in easily understood language. They can also help criticize the weaknesses of the opposing side’s scientific case.
Experts must maintain their role as educators, not advocates. If an expert is biased on one side of the issue, the authority of him on which the ipse dixit test is admitted becomes questionable. Furthermore, authorities must be experts in the applicable field, not just any discipline. For example, a physician who practices gastroenterology and treats diseases of the digestive system would be considered an inappropriate witness to present ipse dixit evidence on cardiovascular surgery in most courtrooms, even though he or she may truly understand an enormous amount of cardiovascular surgery. . Courts also recognize that experts also make mistakes, disagree with their colleagues on some issues, and sometimes deviate from commonly accepted opinions, making all ipse dixit claims somewhat questionable.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
