Quiz 1 (Daubert/ Frye) Flashcards
Frye Standard
whether the expert’s opinion is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community
scientific evidence is reliable if it has been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community
What does ‘Beyond the Ken’ mean?
Courts admitted expert testimony if it would be helpful to jurors. Basically, if the knowledge was beyond common sense or the jury would generally need an explanation on the subject, they would admit an expert to help.
BEYOND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AVERAGE JUROR
Rule 702 (Early Version)
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 thereto in the form of an opinion or
otherwise
Rule 403
Allows for relevant evidence to be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.
The only mention of the judge’s role in regulating potentially unreliable evidence was in Rule 403.
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed
By the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or
By considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence
Daubert Rule
In Daubert, the Court held that the twin standards of Rule 702—relevance and reliability—are incompatible with the stricter “general acceptance” test.
Expert testimony from a qualified expert is admissible if it will assist the jury in comprehending the evidence and determining issues of fact.
Initial 5 (more important) Daubert Factors
(1) Whether the theory or technique can be tested
(2) Whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication
(3) The known or potential rate of error
(4) The existence, and maintenance, of standards controlling the technique’s operation
(5) Whether the theory or technique has been “generally accepted” (the Frye test basically)
Second 5 Daubert Factors
(6) Whether experts are “proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying.”
(7) whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion
(8) Whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations
(9) Whether the expert “is being as careful as he would be in his regular professional work outside his paid litigation consulting.”
(10) Whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give
Rewritten Rule 702
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
What was the “magic?”
Including the scientific knowledge component that essentially worked Frye into Daubert
So, in order for expert evidence to be used in a trial in a jurisdiction using Frye, the evidence must be…
(1) The evidence must be “beyond the ken” of the average juror;
and
(2) The evidence must be reliable (as determined by the Frye test)
General Electric Holding
On appeal, the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert scientific evidence will be reviewed only for “abuse of discretion”
This means that appellate courts will largely defer to the decisions made by trial judge
Going forward, the major battle for expert testimony is at the trial level
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999)
Rule 702 does not distinguish between “scientific” knowledge and technical or other specialised knowledge, but makes clear that any such knowledge might become the subject of expert testimony
The Dauber “gatekeeping” obligation applies not only to “scientific” testimony, but to all expert testimony
A trial judge determining the admissibility of an engineering expert’s testimony may consider one or more of the specific Daubert Factors
Cleaned up the Daubert Magic
