Daubert standard

Daubert Standard refers to a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony in federal court. The standard originates from the 1993 Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which highlighted the role of judges as gatekeepers in determining the relevance and reliability of expert testimony. This standard is crucial in ensuring that the evidence presented in court is not only pertinent but also scientifically valid.

Background

Prior to the Daubert decision, the admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts was governed by the Frye Standard, which required that the methods used by the expert be generally accepted by the scientific community. The Daubert ruling expanded this by allowing judges more discretion in evaluating the reliability of the evidence.

Criteria

The Daubert standard sets forth a non-exhaustive checklist for federal judges to consider when assessing the admissibility of scientific evidence:

• Whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested
• Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication
• The known or potential error rate
• The existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation
• Whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community

Implications

The Daubert standard has significantly impacted the legal landscape by emphasizing the importance of the scientific validity and relevance of expert testimony. It has led to a more rigorous scrutiny of expert evidence in courtrooms, affecting various fields such as medical malpractice, product liability, and environmental law.

Extensions

The principles established in Daubert were further extended to all expert testimony, not just scientific, in the subsequent Supreme Court cases of General Electric Co. v. Joiner and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. These cases affirmed the trial judge's gatekeeping role in assessing the reliability and relevance of all expert evidence, including technical and other specialized knowledge.

Criticism and Support

The Daubert standard has been both praised and criticized. Supporters argue that it enhances the quality of expert testimony and helps prevent "junk science" from being presented to juries. Critics, however, contend that it places too much power in the hands of judges to determine what constitutes reliable science, potentially leading to the exclusion of legitimate scientific evidence.

Conclusion

The Daubert standard represents a pivotal development in the admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts. By providing a framework for evaluating the scientific validity of such testimony, it aims to ensure that only reliable, relevant evidence informs the judicial process. As science and technology continue to evolve, the application of the Daubert standard will remain a critical aspect of legal proceedings involving expert evidence.