In deciding Daubert, the Court made it clear that its holding was limited to the “scientific context” presented by the case, and left for another day the issue of standards applicable to “technical, or otherwise specialized knowledge.” This was a substantial limitation because testimony by experts with scientific specialties constitutes only a small part of the expert testimony presented in courts. The inquiry, the Court stated, was to be “a flexible one,” although “The focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.” These are whether a theory or technique used by an expert “can be (and has been) tested,” whether it has been “subjected to peer review and publication,” whether there is a “known or potential rate of error” in the methodology, and whether there are “standards controlling the technique's operation.” The Court further added that the notion of “general acceptance” remains a relevant consideration.
Expert testimony trial#
The Court stated that “the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” The reliability or “trustworthiness” of scientific evidence, the Court further noted, is to be based on “scientific validity.” The Court did not provide an exhaustive checklist of things that a trial judge needs to consider in making such a determination, but did identify some pertinent considerations.
The Court in Daubert, in which the ultimate issue was whether the use, during pregnancy, of a prescription antinausea drug had caused birth defects in children, held that federal trial court judges are to serve as gatekeepers on the admissibility of scientific evidence.
In Daubert the Court held that under the FRE this general acceptance test could no longer function as the sole test for admissibility. Under this test, an expert's analysis has to be based on principles and practices generally accepted as reliable by others working in the same field as the expert. Prior to Daubert, the dominant test for the admissibility of expert testimony was the general acceptance standard ( Frye v. Rule 702 was interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. This threshold for admissibility is designed to allow novel approaches to addressing issues in litigation, yet to preclude testimony based on “junk science.” Daubert v. 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. The admissibility of expert testimony is governed in federal courts by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). Recent research demonstrates that both judges and jurors are insensitive to variations in the methodological quality of expert evidence, which may lead them to make decisions based on flawed evidence. Although people have expressed concerns about the prejudicial effects of nonadversarial or court-appointed expert testimony, jurors do not seem overly influenced by court-appointed experts. This research shows that adversarial expert testimony (i.e., testimony presented by one side) influences juror decisions, is more influential when it is explicitly linked to the trial evidence, and sensitizes jurors to relevant trial evidence.
The history of empirical trial simulation research examining the effects of expert testimony on juror judgments is reviewed. Although experts in civil law systems are usually court-appointed, their opinions may not be binding on the judge or judges presiding in the case.
The fact finder determines how much weight to accord the testimony. The evidence must be reliable, relevant to the case, more probative than prejudicial, and must assist the trier of fact to be admissible. In common law systems, expert testimony is usually proffered by one of the parties. Kovera, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001Įxpert testimony is presented in legal proceedings when a judge or jury needs assistance evaluating a material fact in a court proceeding.
0 kommentar(er)
