Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

'Gatekeeping' Expands in Two Jurisdictions

This article explores two noteworthy decisions from 2012 by the Supreme Courts of California and Pennsylvania that break away from the narrow <I>Frye</I> test, clearly mandate active gatekeeping responsibility for trial judges, and broaden the scope of inquiries into expert scientific testimony.

36 minute read July 30, 2013 at 11:12 AM
By
Christopher W. Wood
'Gatekeeping' Expands in Two Jurisdictions

Twenty years ago, federal courts came under new rules for admissibility of expert scientific testimony from the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.

June 01, 2026

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

June 01, 2026