text:
Daubert standard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Daubert standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a Daubert motion, which is a special case of motion in limine raised before or during trial to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy refers to the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which held in 1993 that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye "general acceptance" test as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, but that the rule incorporated a flexible reliability standard instead;
General Electric Co. v. Joiner,[1] which held that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and his conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether it should admit expert testimony;
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,[2] which held in 1999 that the judge's gatekeeping function identified in Daubert applies to all expert testimony, including that which is non-scientific.
Important appellate-level opinions that clarify the standard include Judge Kozinski's opinion in Daubert on remand (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)), and Judge Becker's opinion in In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994).
Contents
[hide]
1 Definition
2 Use
2.1 Daubert motion: timing
3 History
4 International influence
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
Definition[edit]
In Daubert, seven members of the Court agreed on the following guidelines for admitting scientific expert testimony:
Judge is gatekeeper: Under Rule 702, the task of "gatekeeping", or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from "scientific knowledge", rests on the trial judge.
Relevance and reliability: This requires the trial judge to ensure that the expert's testimony is "relevant to the task at hand" and that it rests "on a reliable foundation". Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 584-587. Concerns about expert testimony cannot be simply referred to the jury as a question of weight. Furthermore, the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 104(a), not Rule 104(b); thus, the Judge must find it more likely than not that the expert's methods are reliable and reliably applied to the facts at hand.
Scientific knowledge = scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.[3]
Illustrative Factors: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a set of illustrative factors (i.e., not a "test") in determining whether these criteria are met:
Whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community;
Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
Whether it can be and has been tested;
Whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and
Whether the research was conducted independent of the particular litigation or dependent on an intention to provide the proposed testimony.[4]
In 2000, Rule 702 was amended in an attempt to codify and structure elements embodied in the "Daubert trilogy." The rule then read as follows:
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
(As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000.)
In 2011, Rule 702 was again amended to make the language clearer. The rule now reads:
RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
(As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011)
While some federal courts still rely on pre-2000 opinions in determining the scope of Daubert, as a technical legal matter any earlier judicial rulings that conflict with the language of amended Rule 702 are no longer good precedent.
Use[edit]
Although the Daubert standard is now the law in federal court and over half of the states, the Frye standard remains the law in some jurisdictions including California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington.[5]
Florida passed a bill to adopt the Daubert standard as the law governing expert witness testimony, which took effect on July 1, 2013.[6] However, the Florida Supreme Court rejected the Legislature's "Daubert Amendment" to the extent it is procedural in nature.[7]
Although trial judges have always had the authority to exclude inappropriate testimony, prior to Daubert, trial courts often preferred to let juries hear evidence proffered by both sides.[8] Once certain evidence has been excluded by a Daubert motion because it fails to meet the relevancy and reliability standard, it will likely be challenged when introduced again in another trial. Even though a Daubert motion is not binding to other courts of law, if something was found untrustworthy by one court, other judges may choose to follow that precedent. Of course, a decision by an appellate court that a piece of evidence is inadmissible under Daubert would be binding on district courts within that court's jurisdiction.
Daubert motion: timing[edit]
To attack expert testimony as inadmissible, counsel may bring pretrial motions, including motions in limine.[9] The motion in limine may be brought prior to trial, although counsel may bring the motion during trial as well.[10]
A motion attacking expert testimony should be brought within a reasonable time after the close of discovery if the grounds for the objection can be reasonably anticipated.[11] The hearing should be made well in advance of the first time a case appears on a trial calendar.
In one case where a Daubert hearing was conducted on the day of the trial, in which the district court excluded all plaintiff's expert testimony, resulting in the dismissal of all claims, the appellate court remanded the case because of multiple irregularities and a defective record of lower court proceedings.[12]
The appellate court noted that in cases that rely heavily on expert testimony, a district court should set a discovery[13] and trial schedule that realistically provides both sides with an adequate opportunity to introduce necessary evidence. The application of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to proposed expert testimony can often be an uncertain process, and is best conducted in such a manner that litigants have a reasonable opportunity to locate experts who meet the rule's requirements.
In another case in which the defendant was apparently at fault for filing a motion to exclude expert testimony one week before the trial date, the district court denied the motion on that ground, but it advised the defendant that it might conduct its own voir dire of the expert in question before he testified. The district court preliminarily found that defendant's motion was predicated on a ruling made almost three months earlier by a district court in another state, and that defendant had shown no good cause for waiting to file the motion. The defendant ultimately lost that case, following the admission of the disputed expert testimony, and ultimately failed in its appeal.[14]
An evidentiary hearing on the motion may not be necessary if the court finds that it would not assist the court in ruling on any of the matters in the motion.
History[edit]
Prior to Daubert, relevancy in combination with the Frye test were the dominant standards for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in Federal courts. Frye is based on a 1923 Federal Court of appeals ruling involving the admissibility of polygraph evidence.[15] Under Frye, the Court-based the admissibility of testimony regarding novel scientific evidence on whether it has "gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." The trial court's gatekeeper role in this respect is typically described as conservative, thus helping to keep pseudoscience out of the courtroom by deferring to those in the field.
In Daubert, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1923 Frye test was superseded by the 1975 Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 702 governing expert testimony. Rule 702 originally stated (in its entirety),
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
In Daubert, the Court ruled that nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert evidence "gives any indication that 'general acceptance' is a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. Moreover, such a rigid standard would be at odds with the Rules' liberal thrust and their general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to 'opinion' testimony."
By requiring experts to provide relevant opinions grounded in reliable methodology, proponents of Daubert were satisfied that these standards would result in a fair and rational resolution of the scientific and technological issues which lie at the heart of product liability adjudication.[16]
Ironically, Daubert has not appeared to further the Federal Rules philosophy of admitting generally all relevant testimony, and specifically of relaxing the traditional barriers to 'opinion' testimony." The Daubert decision has instead been heralded by some political commentators as one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in imposing higher barriers for toxic tort and product liability cases, by allegedly reducing the volume of so-called junk science in the court room.
According to a 2002 RAND study, post Daubert, the percentage of expert testimony by scientists that was excluded from the courtroom significantly rose. This rise likely contributed to a doubling in successful motions for summary judgment in which 90% were against plaintiffs.[17] Beyond this study, there is little empirical evidence of the impact of Daubert. However, some critics argue that Daubert has disrupted the balance between plaintiffs and defendants, “The exclusion of expert testimony affects plaintiffs far more than defendants because plaintiffs may then not be able to meet their required burden of proof. Furthermore, there is little point in plaintiffs going to the expense of Daubert motions to exclude defendant’s experts until they know if their case will proceed. So if more experts are now being excluded, then Daubert has undoubtedly shifted the balance between plaintiffs and defendants and made it more difficult for plaintiffs to litigate successfully.”[8] Similarly, Daubert hearings can be subject to various abuses by attorneys attempting to bolster a weak case. These tactics can range from simply attempting to delay the case to driving up the costs of the litigation forcing settlement.[18]
A different pattern has emerged in criminal cases. In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof and uses a host of forensic science methods as evidence to prove their case. But, Daubert motions are rarely made by criminal defendants and when they do, they lose a majority of the challenges.[19][20] Some critics of the use of unreliable science in court argue that Daubert has had beneficial effects in civil litigation, but fails to address the underlying pathologies of the forensic science system that leads to dubious verdicts in criminal cases.[21]
Some commentators believe that Daubert caused judges to become—in the phrase used in former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent in Daubert—amateur scientists, many lacking the scientific literacy to effectively fulfill their role as gatekeeper of scientific evidence.[22] Although "science for judges" forums have emerged in the wake of Daubert in order to educate judges in a variety of scientific fields, many are still skeptical about the usefulness of the Daubert standard in discerning valid science.[23][24][25] The responsibility to assess scientific relevance has shifted from highly trained expert witnesses to judges deficient in science education. The "Daubert" ruling furthermore admits the possible introduction of non-peer reviewed data and conclusions. This increasingly shifts the burden of scientific judgement onto judges who have not had an education which would enable them to properly evaluate such data.[26]
Pursuant to Rule 104(a), in Daubert the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that the following factors be considered:[27]
Has the technique been tested in actual field conditions (and not just in a laboratory)?
Has the technique been subject to peer review and publication?
What is the known or potential rate of error?
Do standards exist for the control of the technique's operation?
Has the technique been generally accepted within the relevant scientific community?
The Supreme Court explicitly cautioned that the Daubert list should not be regarded by judges as "a definitive checklist or test..." Yet in practice, judges have judged the admissibility of scientific evidence using the "Daubert factors" as a checklist; for example, the trial court judge in Kumho admitted to erroneously treating the factors as mandatory.[8]
International influence[edit]
The Canadian Supreme Court has expressly adopted the Daubert standard in two cases. R. v. Mohan,;[28] R. v. J.L.-J., [2000].[29] In J.L.-J., the Court took a look at the development of U.S. law in this regard, noted the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the Frye standard and its replacement with the Daubert Standard. While the Court did note that: " Daubert must be read in light of the specific text of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which differs from our own procedures," the Court also stated in the same sentence that "the U.S. Supreme Court did list a number of factors that could be helpful in evaluating the soundness of novel science."[30] The Court then applied the Daubert standard to a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Quebec Court had held that greater liberality should be applied by the Court in receiving pro-defense scientific evidence in a criminal case.[31] The Court rejected this decision and reinstated the defendant's conviction.
Additionally, in 2005, the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology Committee recommended the creation of a Forensic Science Advisory Council to regulate forensic evidence in the UK and observed that:
The absence of an agreed protocol for the validation of scientific techniques prior to their being admitted in court is entirely unsatisfactory. Judges are not well-placed to determine scientific validity without input from scientists. We recommend that one of the first tasks of the Forensic Science Advisory Council be to develop a "gate-keeping" test for expert evidence. This should be done in partnership with judges, scientists and other key players in the criminal justice system, and should build on the US Daubert test.[32]
The Law Commission for England and Wales has proposed a consultation paper (No.190) to adopt a criterion like the Daubert Standard to help reform the law of evidence in regards to the admissibility of scientific evidence.[33]
See also[edit]
Frye standard
Objective historian
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
References[edit]
Jump up ^ 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
Jump up ^ 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
Jump up ^ Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) 509 U.S. 579, 589.
Jump up ^ Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)
Jump up ^ Giannelli & E. Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence §§ 1.06, 1.16 (4th ed. 2007).
Jump up ^ Reuters
Jump up ^ http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc16-181.pdf
^ Jump up to: a b c Berger, Margaret A. (2005). "What Has a Decade of Daubert Wrought". American Journal of Public Health. 95(S1): S59–65. PMID 16030340. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044701. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-06-28. Retrieved 2006-07-12.
Jump up ^ The third circuit has emphasized the importance of conducting in limine hearings under Fed. R. Evid. 104 (resolution of preliminary questions) when making reliability determinations required by Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993). See Padillas v. Stork-Gamco, Inc., 186 F.3d 412, 417 (3d Cir. 1999) ; Voilas v. General Motors Corp., 73 F. Supp. 2d 452, 455 (D.N.J. 1999) (not holding hearing in this case, however). See also 1 Weinstein's Federal Evidence, Ch. 104, Preliminary Questions (Matthew Bender 2d ed.); Edward J. Imwinkelried & David A. Schlueter, Federal Evidence Tactics, Ch. 1, Article I: General Provisions, § 1.04 (Matthew Bender).
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Smoot v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir. 2006) (case dismissed after plaintiff expert's testimony excluded); Curtis v. M&S Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661, 667 (5th Cir. 1999) ; United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255, 1265-1266 (10th Cir. 1999 ); Heller v. Shaw Indus., Inc., 167 F.3d 146, 155, 157-158 (3d Cir. 1999) ; Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico, 161 F.3d 77, 90 (1st Cir. 1998) ; Jack v. Glaxo Wellcome Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1319 (D. Ga. 2002) (rejecting objection of untimeliness of motion in limine to exclude expert testimony on ground that motion in limine is not dispositive); United States v. Lester, 234 F. Supp. 2d 595, 597-598 (E.D. Va. 2002) (criminal defendant's motion to allow expert testimony regarding reliability of eyewitness testimony denied); Lentz v. Mason, 32 F. Supp. 2d 733, 737 (D.N.J. 1999).
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237, 241-242 (3d Cir. 2008) (after deposition of plaintiff's expert, defendant filed alternative motions to exclude testimony of plaintiff's expert and for summary judgment, and motion for Daubert hearing).
Jump up ^ Webster v. Fulton County, Ga., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 1377 (N.D. Ga. 2000) (denying defendant's Daubert motion as untimely, when brought after court had relied on plaintiff expert's report in denying defense summary judgment motion, and within days of trial date). See also Alfred v. Caterpillar, Inc., 262 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir. 2001 ) (counsel should not sandbag Daubert concerns until close of opponent's case; however, appellate court did not reach issue of late filing of motion because district court chose to address defendant's Daubert objections on merits, rather than deeming them waived); Pullman v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 262 F.3d 759, 763 (8th Cir. 2001) (appellate court noted with disapproval that defendant failed to bring Daubert motion until shortly before the trial began; Daubert inapplicable to experimental test evidence not presented by expert witnesses).
Jump up ^ See Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713, 722 (7th Cir. 2000) . See also Goebel v. Denver and Rio Grande W. R.R., 215 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir. 2000) (district court orally denied motion to exclude expert testimony on morning of trial); McPike v. Corghi S.p.A., 87 F. Supp. 2d 890, 891 n.1 (E.D. Ark. 1999) (court telephoned attorneys with ruling denying defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert testimony, because closeness of trial did not allow time for formal written memo and order at that time; court later rendered substituted memorandum and order, fully stating reasons for its decision in writing).
Jump up ^ See Clay v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 663, 674 (6th Cir. 2000)
Jump up ^ Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923)
Jump up ^ Owen, D. G. (2002). "A Decade of Daubert". Denver University Law Review. 80: 345. ISSN 0883-9409.
Jump up ^ Dixon, L, Gill B. Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision. RAND Institute for Civil Justice. 2002.
Jump up ^ Gutheil, Thomas G.; Bursztajn, Harold J. (1 June 2005). "Attorney Abuses of Daubert Hearings: Junk Science, Junk Law, or Just Plain Obstruction?". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 33 (2): 150–152. PMID 15985655.
Jump up ^ Risinger, D. Michael (2000). "Navigating Expert Reliability: Are Criminal Standards of Certainty Being Left on the Dock?". Albany Law Review. 64: 99. ISSN 0002-4678.
Jump up ^ Neufeld, P. (2005). "The (Near) Irrelevance of Daubert to Criminal Justice and Some Suggestions for Reform". American Journal of Public Health. 95 (S1): S107–S113. PMID 16030325. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.056333.
Jump up ^ Bernstein, David E. (2007). "Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution". Iowa Law Review. SSRN 963461  .
Jump up ^ Gatowski, S. I.; et al. (2001). "Asking the gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert world". Law and Human Behavior. 25 (5): 433–458. doi:10.1023/A:1012899030937.
Jump up ^ Rothman, K. J.; Greenland, S. (2005). "Causation and Causal Inference in Epidemiology". American Journal of Public Health. 95 (S1): S144–S150. PMID 16030331. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.059204.
Jump up ^ Melnick, R. (2005). "A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation". American Journal of Public Health. 95 (S1): S30–S34. PMID 16030335. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.046250.
Jump up ^ Jasanoff, S. (2005). "Law's Knowledge: Science for Justice in Legal Settings". American Journal of Public Health. 95 (S1): S49–S58. PMID 16030338. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.045732.
Jump up ^ Tancredi, Laurence R & Giannini, A. James (December 1994). "The admissibility of scientific evidence in psychiatric malpractice: junk science and the Daubert case". J Clin Forensic Med. 1 (3): 145–8. PMID 16371283. doi:10.1016/1353-1131(94)90082-5.
Jump up ^ See (c) of the syllabus of the Daubert case.
Jump up ^ [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9
Jump up ^ 2 S.C.R. 600
Jump up ^ Id.
Jump up ^ [1998] R.J.Q. 2229, 130 C.C.C. (3d) 541, [1998] Q.J. No. 2493 (QL).
Jump up ^ House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2005) Forensic Science on Trial, London: The Stationery Office Limited, HC96-I, para.173
Jump up ^ The Admissiblity of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (PDF)
External links[edit]
The Daubert Trilogy in the States
Daubert on the Web
Daubert-The Most Influential Supreme Court Decision You've Never Heard Of
Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), collection of original documents and commentary on the Daubert standard and the use of science in public policy.
Barry Yeoman Putting Science in the Dock, The Nation
Bernstein, David (1 February 2007). "Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution". Iowa Law Review (PDF 38 pages)|format= requires |url= (help). George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 07-11, 2008. George Mason University School of Law. 93 (451). SSRN 963461  . Date posted: 15 February 2007 ; Last revised: 28 November 2011
The Daubert Tracker
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daubert_standard&oldid=806722708"
Categories:
United States evidence law
Science and law
Hidden categories:
Pages using citations with format and no URL
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Deutsch
עברית
Edit links
This page was last edited on 23 October 2017, at 19:24.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: i

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: b

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/Rule_of_evidence
mw-redirect
Rule of evidence

values:
/wiki/United_States_of_America
mw-redirect
United States of America

values:
/wiki/Trial_(law)
mw-redirect
Trial (law)

values:
/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
United States Supreme Court

values: In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
mw-redirect
Legal burden of proof

values:
/wiki/Canadian_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
Canadian Supreme Court

values:
/wiki/R._v._Mohan
mw-redirect
R. v. Mohan

values:
/wiki/United_Kingdom_House_of_Commons
mw-redirect
United Kingdom House of Commons

values:
/wiki/Science_and_Technology_Committee
mw-redirect
Science and Technology Committee

values:
/wiki/Objective_historian
mw-redirect
Objective historian

values:
/wiki/PubMed_Identifier
mw-redirect
PubMed Identifier

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16030340

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2004.044701

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0883-9409

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15985655

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0002-4678

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16030325

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2004.056333

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=963461

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1012899030937

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16030331

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2004.059204

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16030335

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2004.046250

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16030338

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2004.045732

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16371283

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp190.pdf

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.daubertontheweb.com

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.defendingscience.org

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.dauberttracker.com

values: Category:Pages using citations with format and no URL

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Daubert_standard
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: הלכת דאוברט – Hebrew

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Daubert_standard rootpage-Daubert_standard vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view


text:
Tsurani
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
Find sources: "Tsurani" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style. Please help rewrite it to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective. (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The Tsurani are a race of humans in the Empire Trilogy novels by Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts. In the series, the feudal Empire of Tsuranuanni is located on the fictional world of Kelewan. The social and political institutions as depicted show a clear influence of feudal Japan, while some of the characters have clearly Nahuatl-influenced names.
Contents
[hide]
1 Geography
2 Culture
2.1 Great Ones
3 Politics
3.1 Known clans and families
3.2 House colors
3.3 Known political parties
4 Religion
5 Army ranks
6 Rifts
7 References
Geography[edit]
The Empire of Tsuranuanni, spanning three continents on the world of Kelewan, consists of the following provinces: Dustari, Ambolina, Neshka, Szetac, Hokani, Lash, Coltari, Honshoni, and Sweto.
Culture[edit]
Tsurani culture is based on a feudal hierarchy. Every individual is born into a specific station with the main hereditary classes being slave, freeperson, and lord/lady. Social status is extremely important to the Tsurani culture and there are many fine divisions within these class distinctions. Great Ones, magicians of the Greater Path, can be drawn from any class, even slaves, based on any observed talent towards magic.
The Empire of Tsuranuani is divided into provinces, each province divided into many estates, the hereditary homes of Tsurani Lords/Ladies. Lords and Ladies have soldiers, field workers, and household staff who have sworn fealty in return for protection and shelter, as well as slaves who are considered property. A sub-class of Tsurani that falls beneath even a slave is that of the grey warrior, former soldiers and servants of dead or disgraced Lords and Ladies, who as a debt of shame to their former house, are not permitted an honorable death.
Lords and Ladies of the Empire are allied by Clan and political party affiliation. Lordship and Ladyship within a family is hereditary via agnatic primogeniture, that is if there are no direct male heirs to become the next ruling Lord, a female heir may become ruling Lady.
Tsurani culture places a high value on tradition, family values, and honor. The Tsurani always strive to appear and act honorably, though shady dealings including murder and sabotage are not uncommon and are condoned so long as there is no proof of wrongdoing. However, public revelation of dishonorable behavior, such as discovery of plans to assassinate another Lord/Lady or cowardice on the battlefield, can force a ruling Lord or Lady to commit ritual suicide (or even obliteration of their entire family) to retain their House's honor.
Great Ones[edit]
Great Ones, or Black Robes, are magicians on Kelewan who practice magic of the Greater Path. They form the Assembly of Magicians, which resides in The City of Magicians in the northern Ambolina province. Great Ones are considered outside the law, allowed to act largely as they see fit in the name of serving the Empire and even the Emperor cannot overrule a decision made by a Great One. Although the Great Ones usually avoid meddling with the day-to-day running of the Empire, there have been certain instances in which their intervention has affected the evolution of the Empire.
Only one of every five persons inducted into training to become a Great One makes it to this ultimate goal and takes his place in the Assembly of Magicians, while those who fail die in the process. Women are not permitted to become Great Ones, female children that display any magical ability are abruptly removed from their homes by the Assembly and subsequently murdered, unbeknown to the rest of the Empire.
During the Last book of the Empire Series, Mistress of the Empire (Co-written by Janny Wurts), the Great Ones become bound by the Law and are no longer outside it under the taking of the throne of the Light of Heaven by House Acoma. During this final confrontation, Cho-ja spellcasters face off against six of the magicians of the assembly including Hochopepa and Shimone to try to stop the Black Robes from destroying their empire inadvertently.
Politics[edit]
The High Council, consisting of the lords and ladies of Great and Lesser houses, has ruled Tsuranuanni for thousands of years. The Lords of the Five Great Families, the oldest Houses in the Empire, can be elected Warlord by consensus of the High Council. The Warlord is then the leader of the High Council. Political machinations usually play the biggest part in the nomination of the Warlord, with murder not unheard of during the election.
The Emperor, known as the Light Of Heaven, is viewed as a living god, revered by all Tsurani. The Light of Heaven is seen as more of a spiritual leader who rarely enters public sight, let alone exercises his power. He spends most of his time in spiritual contemplation, praying for the welfare of the Empire. The Warlord tends to rule the Empire in the Emperor's stead, commanding supreme political and military authority, like a medieval Prime Minister of sorts.
The Warlord is the supreme commander of the Tsurani military as well as leader of the High Council. They are traditionally elected from among the lords of the five Great Families, as those families are descended from the brothers of the first Emperor and thus the founders of Tsuranuanni, a fact not known to many other than imperial scholars. Although the power and influence of each of the five families (and their clans) waxes and wanes with each generation, they are held to be among the most powerful in the Empire.
Although political parties exist, houses can join and leave parties as they wish, often using their party affiliations to gain an advantage over a rival or rouse support for a Lord/Ladies's own agenda. Political parties can also join together in alliances, as was the case during the Riftwar. The War Party and the Blue Wheel Party joined forces in the Alliance for War, though the Blue Wheel Party withdrew four years into the Riftwar, greatly weakening the then Warlord's position within the High Council.
Clan affiliations are based upon blood relation, though they are often quite loose and usually do not have a huge impact on voting within the High Council. However, if Clan Honor is called, every House in the Clan must support the agenda of the House who has called Clan Honor. As Clan Honor could potentially drag the entire Empire into civil war, the Great Ones can intervene and forbid any fighting between Clans or Houses, even going so far as to use magical powers to enforce their will. All Clans nominate a Warchief, who commands the military forces of a Clan. The Lords of the Five Families can also be elected Warlord, the supreme military commander of Tsuranuanni. The Warlord is second-in-command only to the Emperor, but the Warlord is usually more powerful due to the Light of Heaven rarely engaging in political or military matters.
The Riftwar with the Midkemians heralded a sweeping change to the structure of Tsurani politics. Mara of the Acoma became disillusioned with Tsurani politics when a slave in her possession explained the structure of Midkemian society, which was similarly a feudal state but with no slavery and the ruling leadership held more accountable for their actions. Using every political advantage at her disposal, Mara managed to dissolve the position of Warlord, making the Emperor the supreme leader of the council, supported by the Lords of the Five Families. In a twist of fate, Mara was then adopted into the Imperial Family and her son Justin eventually became the 92nd Light of Heaven, though his father was the Midkemian slave Kevin, a fact not known to many outside of Mara's inner circle.
Known clans and families[edit]
Clans of the five Great Families:
Kanazawai - Keda†, Shinzawai, Omechkel
Omechan - Oaxatucan†
Shonshoni - Minwanabi†, Sajaio
Ionani - Anasati, Bontura, Jadi, Tonmargu†, Ukudabi
Xacala - Xacatecas†, Matawa, Xosai
Other clans:
Hadama - Acoma, Chekowara, Sutanta, Cozinchah, Poltapara, Pechta, Jinguai, Lujan
Hunzan - Chichimecha, Chilapaningo, Wedewayo
Nimboni - Hanqu
† One of the Five Great Families
With the destruction of House Minwanabi, House Acoma became one of the Five Great Families (and Clan Hadama one of the most powerful clans), although Clan Shonshoni continued to exist.
House colors[edit]
Acoma - Green (shatra bird sigil)
Anasati - Scarlet and yellow (triangular sigil)
Bontura - Violet and white
Ekamchi - Purple and yellow
Hanqu - Scarlet and brown
Inrodaka - Red
Jinguai - Yellow and red trimmed with black
Keda - Scarlet and grey (alt. - red and black)
Lujan - Grey and green
Minwanabi - Black and orange
Pechta - Orange and blue
Poltapara - Deep blue
Shinzawai - Blue
Tonmargu - Black and green
Tuscalora - Pale blue
Washota - Green and blue
Xacatecas - Purple and gold (alt.- purple and yellow)
Known political parties[edit]
Blue Wheel Party
Golden Flower Party
Imperial Party
Jade Eye Party
Party for Peace
Party for Progress
Traditionalists
War Party
Yellow Serpent Party
Religion[edit]
There are 20 orders (10 higher, 10 lower) that have priests and temples throughout Tsuranuanni. On the occasion of the wedding and coronation of Justin and Jehilia, they are called the "Twenty Higher Gods."[1] The following chapter speaks of the "Twenty Gods of the Higher Heaven and the Twenty Gods of the Lower Heaven." Only a few of the Tsurani gods are listed in Raymond Feist's novels. They are as follows:
Baracan: Lord of Swords. Singer of Battle. God of Honor.
Chochocan: The Good God. The Healer. The Bringer Of Rest.
Fa: The Sleeper. Master of the Night. The Retriever.
Hantukama: Lord of Healers. Bringer of Blessed Health. Cloud Rider.
Hilbantucan: The Architect. The Silent Builder. The Master of Works.
Hilio: The Teacher. Master of Wisdom. Judge of Life.
Jastur: Lord of War. Bringer of Terror. The Revenger.
Juran: The Just. Master of Life. God of the Home. Father of Winds.
Juru: Lord of Sailors. Father of Waves. Lord of Fish.
Lashima: Queen of the Sky. Mother of Birds. Builder of Clouds.
Milianxana: Goddess of Singers. Mother of Happiness. Mistress of Wine. Goddess of Love.
Nictac: Lord of Thieves. Master of Assassins. Protector of Travelers.
Oxalaca: The Master of Oceans. Builder of Ships. Master of Fishers.
Salana: Mistress of Rain. Harvest Mother. Mother of Beasts.
Sibi: Goddess of Death. Lover of All. Dancer in the Darkness.
Thanaxaca: Master of Song. Lord of the Dance. Father of the Arts.
Tomachca: Bringer of Peace. Lover of Children. Protector of Orphans.
Turakamu: Brother to Death. Eater of Hearts. The Silently Waiting One. The Red God.
Tuth: Master of Levels. Hewer of Stone. God of Builders. Lord of Laborers.
Zamach: The Leveler. The Fountain of Knowledge. The Master of Justice.
Gods in addition to 20:
Alihama: Goddess of Travelers.[2]
Indiri: No qualities mentioned. The unnamed mother of Hokanu of the Shinzawai is recorded as having taken service in Indiri's temple after her husband Fumita was taken by the Black Robes.[3]
Kelesha: Goddess of brides.[4] Goddess of Mercy[5]
Lulondi: God of Farmers. Obscure priesthood.[6]
Sularmina: Shield of the Weak.[7]
Zurgauli: God of Ill Luck.[8]
Army ranks[edit]
Warlord
Clan Warchief
Force Commander
Force Subcommander
Force Leader
Senior Strike Leader
Strike Leader
Patrol Leader
Rifts[edit]
A rift is a pathway between worlds, often created by magicians. The Black Robes of Tsuranuanni have discovered a method to create rifts, but only Milamber (Pug as he is called on Midkemia), his son Magnus and Macros the Black have thus far mastered the ability to control the size and destination of rifts. The first rift to appear on Midkemia came from Kelewan, which led to the Riftwar.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Mistress of the Empire, ch. 31.
Jump up ^ Mistress of the Empire, ch. 7.
Jump up ^ Servant of the Empire, ch. 16.
Jump up ^ Daughter of the Empire, ch. 7.
Jump up ^ Servant of the Empire, ch. 3
Jump up ^ Mistress of the Empire, ch. 9.
Jump up ^ Daughter of the Empire, ch.9, p. 233.
Jump up ^ Mistress of the Empire, ch. 18.
[show]
v
t
e
Works by Raymond E. Feist
The Riftwar Cycle
The Riftwar Saga
Magician
Silverthorn
A Darkness at Sethanon
The Empire Trilogy
Daughter of the Empire
Servant of the Empire
Mistress of the Empire
Legends of the Riftwar
Honoured Enemy
Murder in LaMut
Jimmy the Hand
The Riftwar Legacy
Krondor: The Betrayal
Krondor: The Assassins
Krondor: Tear of the Gods
Krondor's Sons
Prince of the Blood
The King's Buccaneer
The Serpentwar Saga
Shadow of a Dark Queen
Rise of a Merchant Prince
Rage of a Demon King
Shards of a Broken Crown
Conclave of Shadows
Talon of the Silver Hawk
King of Foxes
Exile's Return
The Darkwar Saga
Flight of the Nighthawks
Into a Dark Realm
Wrath of a Mad God
The Demonwar Saga
Rides a Dread Legion
At the Gates of Darkness
Chaoswar Saga
A Kingdom Besieged
A Crown Imperilled
Magician's End
Short stories
The Wood Boy
The Messenger
Worlds
Midkemia (Novindus)
Kelewan
Nations
The Kingdom of the Isles
The Empire of Great Kesh
The Kingdom of Roldem
The Kingdom of Queg
The Free Cities of Natal
The Keshian Confederacy
Elvandar
Cities and towns
Crydee
Races
Pantathians
Tsurani
Related games
Betrayal at Krondor
Return to Krondor
Midkemia Online
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsurani&oldid=710725282"
Categories:
Raymond E. Feist
Fictional human races
Hidden categories:
Articles with topics of unclear notability from March 2009
All articles with topics of unclear notability
Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction from March 2009
All articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Français
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last edited on 18 March 2016, at 18:03.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: td

value: span

attrs: class role tabindex

values: mw-collapsible-toggle button 0

attrs: class href

attrs: href title

value: small

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources
mw-redirect
Wikipedia:Independent sources

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Notability

values: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-in-universe

values:
mw-collapsible
width:95%; margin: 0.2em 0;

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-multiple_issues compact-ambox

values:
/wiki/Mara_of_the_Acoma
mw-redirect
Mara of the Acoma

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values: The Messenger (short story) (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_Roldem
mw-redirect
The Kingdom of Roldem

values:
/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_Queg
mw-redirect
The Kingdom of Queg

values:
/wiki/The_Keshian_Confederacy
mw-redirect
The Keshian Confederacy

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from March 2009

values: Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability

values: Category:Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction from March 2009

values: Category:All articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Tsurani
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values:
/w/index.php?title=Tsurani&action=edit
Edit this page [ctrl-alt-e]
e

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsurani
Tsurani – French
fr
fr
interlanguage-link-target

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Tsurani rootpage-Tsurani skin-vector action-view