You are here

Reports & Studies

Below is a list of a number of past published studies conducted by the Research Division. Some Center reports are not published or made publicly available due to restrictions in place from the source of the research request. Most research reports can be downloaded and in some instances, a hardcopy publication can be requested. See also Manuals, Monographs, & Guides.

Displaying 121 - 130 of 330
Will return exact match for word(s) entered
Title Datesort ascending
Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials: A Preliminary Analysis

In 1998, the Federal Judicial Center surveyed federal judges about their experiences with expert testimony in civil cases. Judges answered specific questions about their most recent relevant civil trial, as well as questions drawing on their overall experience with expert testimony in civil cases. The Center conducted a similar survey of judges in 1991, shortly before the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Preliminary analysis of the aggregated data has focused on (1) comparing judges' experiences with expert testimony before and after Daubert and (2) exploring the current concerns of judges regarding expert testimony in civil cases. Additional data have since been collected from attorneys in the trials described in the 1998 survey. Preliminary findings include the following:

 Experts testified most frequently in tort cases.

 Medical and mental health experts were the most common broad category of testifying experts, although economists were the single most frequent specific type of expert. Experts from scientific specialties testified in only a small proportion of cases.

Judges were more likely to scrutinize expert testimony before trial and less likely to admit expert testimony in 1998 than in 1991. Attorneys report filing motions in limine, challenging the admissibility of expert testimony, more frequently after Daubert.

 The two most common problems cited by judges were experts who were not objective and the excessive expense of expert testimony.

 In general, judges' assessments of problems with expert testimony did not differ greatly from 1991 to 1998.

Also see the 2002 expanded version of this report Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials.

January 1, 2000
Case Studies of Mass Tort Limited Fund Class Action Settlements & Bankruptcy Reorganizations

This is an expanded version of a report that was previously published as Appendix E of the Report of the Advisory Group on Civil Rules and the Working Group on Mass Torts (Report on Mass Tort Litigation) February 15, 1999. In this version, the author expands her analysis by examining publicly available information about three additional bankruptcy cases. By broadening the range of the study, she was better able to make direct comparisons of--to evaluate the policy implications of--the processes used in class actions and bankruptcies. This report also offers informed suggestions for improving approaches to resolving tort claims against businesses that are approaching insolvency.

January 1, 2000
Digital Audio Recording Technology: A Report on a Pilot Project in Twelve Federal Courts-Prepared for the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the Judicial Conference

Should digital audio recording technology be an approved method for taking the offical record of federal courts proceedings? This report, prepared at the request of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the Judicial Conference, summarizes findings from a study of digital audio recording technology as it was used to take the record of court proceedings in six district and six bankruptcy courts. The study was designed to do four things: (1) provide an assessment of the technology by those who use it in court; (2) provide an assessment of the technology by transcriptionists; (3) compare costs, functionality, and benefits of digital and analog recording systems; and (4) collect information to assist the Administrative Office in preparing technical specifications to guide future purchases of equipment.

May 14, 1999
Court-Ordered Mental Examinations of Capital Defendants: Procedures in Ten States

Report to the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules regarding the proposal to amend Rule 12.2. Procedures governing court-ordered mental examinations are presented as they have been implemented in a sample of districts with extensive death penalty experience.

March 26, 1999
Standards Governing Attorney Conduct in the Bankruptcy Courts: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

Bankruptcy courts are different from the district courts in the attorney conduct area in that attorneys who practice in bankruptcy courts are subject to a complex statutory system, which includes bankruptcy-specific conflict of interest criteria and other standards directly governing attorney conduct. The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in conjunction with the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules requested the Federal Judicial Center to conduct a study of attorney conduct issues in the bankruptcy courts. In December 1998, the Center sent 317 questionnaires to all chief bankruptcy judges (including bankruptcy judges in districts with only one bankruptcy judge) and to all other bankruptcy judges. This report presents the results of the survey.

March 1, 1999
Individual Characteristics of Mass Torts Case Congregations: A report to the Mass Torts Working Group (Appendix D)

This report, done for the Mass Torts Working Group, appointed in 1998 by the Chief Justice, organizes and presents information from published sources on about fifty sets of mass tort litigations involving personal injury and property damage claims. Information presented includes the shape of the litigation (e.g., individual, class action, consolidation, etc.), the number and type of parties, the dispersal of cases in the federal and state systems, the number and types of injuries alleged, the type of product involved and the evidence of its ability to cause the harm alleged, the extent of research and testing of the product, the length of any latency period, the extent of public exposure to the product, and the current status of the litigation.

January 1, 1999
Mass Torts Problems and Proposals: A Report to the Mass Torts Working Group (Appendix C)

The Mass Torts Working Group, appointed in 1998 by the Chief Justice, asked the Center to conduct a literature review examining problems related to mass torts and to discuss proposals for resolving those problems. This report is the result of that research. It identifies fourteen distinct problems and discusses a variety of case-management, legislative, and rule-making proposals to ameliorate those problems.

This report is reprinted at 187 Federal Rules Decisions 328 (1999).

January 1, 1999
Assessment of Caseload Burden in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – Report to the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of the Committee on Judicial Resources of the Judicial Conference of the United States

The mix of cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit differs markedly from the case mix of other U.S. courts of appeals. The implications of this difference for judicial workload and judgeship needs, however, have been unclear. At the request of the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources, we conducted this study to assist the subcommittee in assessing judgeship needs in the D.C. Circuit.

January 1, 1999
Informing Judicial Recusal Decisions: Party Disclosure of Financial Interests Information - Report to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides for disclosure of financial information from corporate parties in the courts of appeals. The purpose of the rule is to assist appellate judges in identifying if they have financial conflicts of interest for recusal purposes. There is no corresponding national rule governing civil, criminal, and bankruptcy proceedings in the district and bankruptcy courts. The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States is evaluating whether a national rule requiring financial interests disclosure in district and bankruptcy courts is necessary, and if so, how the rule should be structured. To inform its work, the Committee asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the practices and variations in methods used in appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts where financial information from parties is currently being filed. The study includes the courts of appeals, because many of them have local rules on disclosure that supplement the requirements set forth in FRAP 26.1.

January 1, 1999
Advisory Committee Notes to the Federal Rules of Evidence That May Require Clarification

At the request of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, Professor Daniel Capra, committee reporter, listed instances where Congress either rejected or substantially changed rules before passage, thus rendering advisory committee notes possibly confusing. He provides an introduction and a rule-by-rule commentary on these discrepancies.

July 21, 1998

Pages