Supreme Court Daubert decision

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-... 

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. 

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 ... 

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... 

---