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. Similarly, the expert is viewed, not in a narrow sense, but as a person qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.” Thus within the scope of the rule are not only experts in the strictest sense of the word, e.g., physicians, physicists, and architects, but also the large group sometimes called “skilled” witnesses, such as bankers or landowners testifying to land values. The fields of knowledge which may be drawn upon are not limited merely to the “scientific” and “technical” but extend to all “specialized” knowledge. When opinions are excluded, it is because they are unhelpful and therefore superfluous and a waste of time. “There is no more certain test for determining when experts may be used than the common sense inquiry whether the untrained layman would be qualified to determine intelligently and to the best possible degree the particular issue without enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the subject involved in the dispute.” Ladd, Expert Testimony, 5 Vand.L.Rev. Whether the situation is a proper one for the use of expert testimony is to be determined on the basis of assisting the trier. It will continue to be permissible for the experts to take the further step of suggesting the inference which should be drawn from applying the specialized knowledge to the facts. The use of opinions is not abolished by the rule, however. Since much of the criticism of expert testimony has centered upon the hypothetical question, it seems wise to recognize that opinions are not indispensable and to encourage the use of expert testimony in non-opinion form when counsel believes the trier can itself draw the requisite inference. The rule accordingly recognizes that an expert on the stand may give a dissertation or exposition of scientific or other principles relevant to the case, leaving the trier of fact to apply them to the facts. Most of the literature assumes that experts testify only in the form of opinions. The most common source of this knowledge is the expert witness, although there are other techniques for supplying it. Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed RulesĪn intelligent evaluation of facts is often difficult or impossible without the application of some scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data (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 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:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |