1/12/2024 0 Comments Fre lay witness1997) (holding that lack of peer review or publication was not dispositive where the expert’s opinion was supported by “widely accepted scientific knowledge”). 1996) (noting that the factors mentioned by the Court in Daubert do not neatly apply to expert testimony from a sociologist). Urban Search Management, 102 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. Other cases have recognized that not all of the specific Daubert factors can apply to every type of expert testimony. Daubert itself emphasized that the factors were neither exclusive nor dispositive. No attempt has been made to “codify” these specific factors. The Court in Kumho held that these factors might also be applicable in assessing the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony, depending upon “the particular circumstances of the particular case at issue.” 119 S.Ct. The specific factors explicated by the Daubert Court are (1) whether the expert’s technique or theory can be or has been tested-that is, whether the expert’s theory can be challenged in some objective sense, or whether it is instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability (2) whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls and (5) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. 171 (1987).ĭaubert set forth a non-exclusive checklist for trial courts to use in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony. Under that Rule, the proponent has the burden of establishing that the pertinent admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, the admissibility of all expert testimony is governed by the principles of Rule 104(a). Consistently with Kumho, the Rule as amended provides that all types of expert testimony present questions of admissibility for the trial court in deciding whether the evidence is reliable and helpful. The amendment affirms the trial court’s role as gatekeeper and provides some general standards that the trial court must use to assess the reliability and helpfulness of proffered expert testimony. at 1178 (citing the Committee Note to the proposed amendment to Rule 702, which had been released for public comment before the date of the Kumho decision). In Daubert the Court charged trial judges with the responsibility of acting as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable expert testimony, and the Court in Kumho clarified that this gatekeeper function applies to all expert testimony, not just testimony based in science. 579 (1993), and to the many cases applying Daubert, including Kumho Tire Co. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. Rule 702 has been amended in response to Daubert v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |