|
Many courts now fall short in their adherence the standards for the admission of opinion testimony in Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Too often, courts do not adequately exercise their “gatekeeping” obligation to ensure that expert testimony is the product of sufficient data and reliable methods. This practice deviates from Rule 702’s requirements and the allocation of responsibility between the judge and the jury for deciding preliminary questions under Rules 104(a) (the judge decides whether evidence is admissible) and 104(b) (the jury decides how much weight to give the evidence). The distinction between these tests as applied to expert testimony is often unclear in the caselaw.
Confusion about the judicial role in assessing the 702 requirements results in the admission of unreliable opinion testimony that misleads juries, undermines civil justice, and erodes stakeholders’ confidence in the courts. A change to the rule is needed, and that’s why LCJ advocated for and supports adoption of the Rule 702 amendment that the federal Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure recently voted unanimously to approve. |
Click above to learn why you should stop calling them Daubert motions and to learn more about Rule 702 Reforms.
|
LEARn more
Learn more by reading the below comments and related research on the topic:
court decisions
PRESS RELEASES
IN THE NEWS
comments
RELeases
Research and reports
|
|
|
|
|
|
