Trier of fact

Revised FRE 702 states 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 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. By contrast, Revised FRE 701 states if the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and... 

FRE 704 states (a) except as provided in subdivision (b), testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact (c) no expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone. (Importantly, ERE 704 does not permit expert witnesses to offer legal conclusions, or to directly express opinions about the credibility of other witnesses.)... 

By contrast, the opponent of substantive admissibility of medical and scientific literature will argue one or more of the following points (1) the author is not available for cross-examination (2) treatises quickly outdate because medical and scientific knowledge change rapidly (3) the trier of fact may be unable to understand complex technical passages that may be presented out of context and (4) the literature is unnecessary as substantive evidence when live expert wimesses are available. 

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 ... 

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 trial of the patent action that is not settled or resolved by the court involves the presentation of evidence, submission of the case to the trier of fact, followed by the entry of... 

Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252-53,101 S.Ct. 1089 (citations omitted). The nltimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff. Id. at 253,101 S.Ct. 1089. 

Both science and the courts are tasked with deriving information from evidence pertinent to the issue at hand. Science employs the scientific method to do so, whereas the courts employ the adversarial system, in which two opposing parties present arguments before the trier of fact. Scientific evidence and testimony may support or refute either argument. The relative... 

Direct evidence is that which is known to a person by personal knowledge, such as eyewitness testimony. Such evidence, if found to be true, would prove a point in contention without requiring any additional analysis or inference. Forensic scientists, by contrast, produce circumstantial evidence, or evidence that requires inference to move logically from the information provided to the answer to a question. For example, if blood is found on a knife, and DNA t)q)-ing showed that the blood matched that of a suspect to 1 person in 6 trillion, the trier of fact must still infer that the blood came from the suspect, since the deposition of the blood was not directly witnessed. Contrary to popular belief, circumstantial evidence is not, by definition, weak evidence. 

General unknown Inclusive evidence Precedent Trier of fact... 

Adversarial system A system in which opposing arguments are presented to the party that makes the decision (trier of fact). 

Trier-of-fact In a court or legal proceeding, the person or person that makes the ultimate decisions can be a judge or jury. 

In order to prevail in a products liability action under a negligence theory, a plaintiff must prove all of the four elements listed and discussed below. Negligence claims are civil actions based on the law of torts. In such actions, the presumption is that the accused party is not liable and the plaintiff has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof required in ordinary civil actions and refers to proof which leads the finder/trier of fact to find that the existence of the fact is more probable than not. Preponderance of the evidence is a lower standard of proof as compared to the standards of clear and convincing and beyond a reasonable doubt. 

---