4th Circuit Upholds Expert Testimony on Hizballah

The main significance of the Fourth Circuit's en banc decision last week in United States v. Hammoud, No. 03-4253 (4th Cir. Sept. 8, 2004), was its holding that the Supreme Court's recent Blakely decision does not invalidate the federal sentencing guidelines.

But the court also struck what seems a major blow for social scientists facing Daubert objections. At Hammoud's trial for providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, the prosecution offered testimony from an expert on Hizballah. The district judge rejected Hammoud's arguments that the testimony was unreliable, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, quoting with apparent approval the expert's explanation of his methods:

Well, we're talking about a social science here. This is not scientific research. Basic academic intellectual research combined with the techniques I was taught in ... various courses I took as an analyst for the government both taught that the best way to go about making sense of something in the social sciences is to collect as much information as possible and to balance each new incoming piece of information against the body of information that you've built to that point.

Sounds like something of a runaway methodological train to us. We'll wait and see how this ruling is applied in civil cases within the Fourth Circuit. Thanks to Steve Minor for drawing this ruling to our attention.