Daubert decision

In a much earlier judicial decision related to the scientific reliability of lie detection tests, the so-called Frye rule had emerged. The rule emphasized the need for scientific evidence to have general acceptance before it could be presented to a jury it held sway in courts until the Daubert decision (and is still considered appropriate in some jurisdictions). 

Critics of Frye also maintain that most state and federal trial judges can and do marshal the resources needed to increase their competence and confidence in performing the gatekeeping responsibilities mandated by the Daubert decision. Examples of such resources include use of court-appointed experts under FRE 706, use of special masters under Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, use of the... 

The standards for admissibility of expert testimony to prove causation clearly will continue to impact the future of toxic tort litigation. Therefore, an understanding of the Daubert decision and the continuing debate over the admissibility of expert scientific or medical testimony will benefit anyone dealing with toxic or environmental tort issues. 

In toxic tort and product liability litigation, the admissibility of new risk assessment methods and data must be approved by the trial judge before being presented to the jury. The U.S. Supreme Court announced a new standard for the admission of scientific data in 1993 in its Daubert decision (Daubert 1993). Under this new standard, federal judges must serve as a gatekeeper to ensure that scientific evidence is reliable and relevant, which includes an assessment of whether the evidence (i) has been empirically tested, (ii) has a known rate of error, (iii) has been peer-reviewed and published, and (iv) is generally accepted within the relevant scientific field. Many state courts have adopted a similar standard, although some still apply the earlier standard on admissibility (Frye 1923), which is whether the evidence is... 

The Daubert Decision This ruling, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court (Daubert v. Merrell Daw Pharmaceuticals (113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993)), was based on the Federal Rules of Evidence enacted in 1975. The case focused particularly on Federal Rule 702. The decision in Daubert gave judges what is referred to as a "gatekeeper role" in determining admissibility. The decision provided a list of criteria judges could use, such as error rate and peer review. Although this decision applied only to federal cases, several states have adopted the same approach to admissibility. 

Congress and the Executive Branch can also use the Supreme Court s decisions about the admission of expert testimony in courts as a starting point for establishing standards for consideration of experts and their opinions. In the 1993 Daubert Case, 17 the U.S. Supreme Court set down some guidelines for courts to use to decide whether an expert and his or her testimony is ad-... 

In 1993, an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, held that the adoption of the Federal Rules impliedly overturned the decision in Frye. Importantly, the text of the FRE does... 

Although Daubert involved an interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence that binds only federal courts, the decision has influenced many state courts grappling with novel scientific evidence. Experts seeking to testify about scientific or medical matters that are novel or not generally accepted should therefore be prepared to address each of the concerns articulated by the Supreme Court. In addition, experts should remember that ... 

Daubert has had a significant impact on forensic science in the past decade, particularly in the realm of DNA evidence, which came of age under this decision. The rigor required for acceptance vmder Daubert and the role of Daubert in hearings determining admissibility are forcing a reexamination of forensic mainstays, such as fingerprint evidence. No doubt forensic chemistry will be affected as this situation evolves. 

Kumho Daubert was extended by the 1999 decision in Kumho Tire Co., ltd. v. Carmichael (119 S. Cr. 1167 (1999)). This ruling extended scope of Daubert and the judge s gatekeeper role to all expert testimony, not just scientific. The decision also acknowledged that standards which would determine admissibility would be different, depending on the discipline in question. ... 

---