Federal Rules of Evidence

However, it is claimed that the US PTO will now accept electronic notebooks provided the Federal Rules of Evidence are followed to the letter [B-29]. In spite of this many companies, at least for the near future, are continuing to maintain paper-based records, or a hybrid form, where electronic notebook pages are printed, signed and filed, for discovery research in order not to compromise any future patent applications. 

Federal Rules of Evidence, 403, 28 United States Code, 1975. 

From 1975 to the present. Rules 403 and 701 through 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) have provided an alternative touchstone for determining the requirements of admissibility of expert testimony. As of 2004, at least 41 states pattern their evidence codes directly after the Eederal Rules. 

The Federal Rules of Evidence (ERE) were adopted in 1975. Subsequently most states (at least 37) have adopted their own codified rules of evidence modeled closely on the FRE. For scientific evidence, the most relevant of the Rules are found in Article VII of the FRE in a section known as Opinions and Expert Testimony. Prior to 1993, some federal appellate courts had applied Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to medical and scientific experts. (Rule 702 authorizes scientific testimony whenever it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.) In 1993, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an important interpretation of Rule 702. Seven of the nine justices ruled that judges must serve as evidentiary gatekeepers who determine whether proffered evidence is scientifically valid and relevant. The Court suggested several factors for judges to consider in determining whether to admit a particular theory or technique Is the theory or hypothesis testable Has it been tested Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication For a particular scientific technique or methodology, what is the known or potential rate of error What (if any) are the standards that control the technique s operation To what extent is the theory or technique generally accepted in the scientific community ... 

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 ... 

Although the Supreme Court stated that the Frye decision did not survive the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Frye test remains influential in American courts. The Frye test refers to the standard for admission of scientific evidence applied by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Frye V. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). In refusing to admit the results of a lie detector test, the court stated in pertinent part ... 

In federal court, admissibility of scientific evidence and expert testimony depends upon the application of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the facts of any case. After Daubert, these rules generally permit the judge (as gatekeeper ) to admit evidence which is helpful to the trier-of-fact, reliable, and nonprejudicial. 

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. 

During testimony, the scientist must also be aware of the demands of the courts. The procedures used in the laboratory must not only rest on a firm scientific foundation but must also satisfy the criteria of admissibility. The primary rules for scientific and expert evidence are governed by federal and state statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and case law (1-3). GC is a techniqne that is generally accepted by the scientific community as a reliable procednre in the analysis of physical evidence and has met all the requirements imposed by the judicial system when properly applied. 

Third, it can contest the action. If the manufacturer contests the action, the case is then treated like any other civil case under the federal rules of civil procedure, and the government must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. The government must produce evidence, in support of its allegations, including proof of interstate shipment of the drug or its components. FDA employees may testify, but... 

The movement toward federal appliance efficiency standards stalled in the 1980s as the Reagan Administration, which opposed standards from an ideological perspective, began. That administration s approach was made evident by its refusal to finalize the DOE s 1980 standards proposal, and in 1983, by the issuance of a federal rule that determined that no standards were necessary. Both the delay and the no standard determination were challenged by NRDC, with the support of several large states, through the courts. 

The Church of Scientology attempted to convince the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to pull Prozac from the market. However, the FDA ruled against taking such action because there was no scientific evidence to support the claims made by the Church of Scientology (Burton 1991). 

---