Daubert Standard: Civil Law Application Explored

The Daubert Standard is a rule used in courts to determine the admissibility of expert witness testimony. It applies to both civil and criminal cases and can be used when either party believes that the other side is using junk science to prove their point. The standard was established in the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which set a new standard for the admissibility of expert testimony. Under the Daubert Standard, the trial court considers various factors to determine whether an expert's methodology is valid, including whether the theory or technique can be tested, whether it has been peer-reviewed, and whether it has gained acceptance within the relevant scientific community.

The Daubert Standard vs. the Frye Standard

The Frye Standard and the Daubert Standard are two different approaches to determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony in court. The Frye Standard, which originated in the 1923 case of Frye v. United States, holds that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only when that technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. In other words, the scientific community is the gatekeeper of evidence admissibility. This standard has been criticised for preventing reliable technology from being used in courts simply because it is new and has not yet been widely adopted.

The Daubert Standard, on the other hand, places the trial judge in the role of gatekeeper. This standard, established in the 1993 case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., outlines a set of factors for judges to consider when assessing the reliability and relevance of expert witness testimony. These factors include whether the technique or theory can be tested and assessed for reliability, whether it has been subject to peer review and publication, its known or potential rate of error, the existence and maintenance of standards and controls, and whether it has been generally accepted in the scientific community. The Daubert Standard thus allows for a more flexible, case-by-case evaluation of evidence.

While the Daubert Standard has superseded the Frye Standard in federal courts, some states continue to adhere to the Frye Standard, and others apply a modified version of one or the other. In practice, there appears to be little evidence that the shift from Frye to Daubert has substantially impacted the admissibility of expert testimony.

The Daubert Challenge

The Daubert Standard provides a systematic framework for a trial court judge to assess the reliability and relevance of expert witness testimony before it is presented to a jury. This standard transformed the landscape of expert testimony by placing the responsibility on trial judges to act as "gatekeepers" of scientific evidence. The Daubert case introduced a more comprehensive approach that requires judges to scrutinize not only the expert's methodology but also the underlying scientific principles. This shift aimed to curtail the admission of pseudoscientific or unreliable expert testimony.

The Daubert Standard considers the following factors to determine whether an expert’s methodology is valid:

• Whether the technique or theory in question can be, and has been, tested.
• Whether it has been subjected to publication and peer review.
• Its 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.

A Daubert Challenge can make or break a case, so surviving it is critical to the outcome. When defending against a Daubert Challenge, it is important to be as thorough as possible and address any and all arguments made against the expert. This may involve addressing all of the applicable Daubert factors individually and defending against each one. It is also important to keep in mind the potential of a challenge when first retaining an expert and ensure their opinions strive to satisfy the factors enumerated in Daubert, with a focus on their methods and the scientific basis used to reach their conclusions.

The Daubert Motion

The Daubert Standard, established in the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., provides a systematic framework for trial court judges to assess the reliability and relevance of expert witness testimony before it is presented to a jury. This standard transformed the landscape of expert testimony by placing the responsibility on trial judges to act as "gatekeepers" of scientific evidence.

The Daubert Standard sets out several factors for trial courts to consider when determining the validity of an expert's methodology, including:

• Whether the technique or theory can be tested and assessed for reliability.
• Whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication.
• The known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory.
• The existence and maintenance of standards and controls.
• Whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community.

These factors aim to prevent unreliable or "junk science" from being presented as evidence in court. The burden is on the proponent of the expert testimony to establish its admissibility by addressing these factors.

The Daubert Hearing

• Whether the technique or theory in question can be, and has been, tested.
• Whether it has been subjected to publication and peer review.
• Its 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.

The Daubert Ruling

A Daubert ruling is a decision made by a trial judge on the admissibility of expert witness testimony. The ruling is based on the Daubert standard, which was established in the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. The standard transformed the landscape of expert testimony by placing the responsibility on trial judges to act as "gatekeepers" of scientific evidence.

The Daubert standard provides a set of criteria to determine the admissibility of expert witness testimony. These criteria include:

• Whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested.
• Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication.
• Its 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.

The ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony can have a significant impact on the outcome of a case. It is, therefore, crucial for attorneys to understand the Daubert standard and how to effectively execute or survive a Daubert challenge.

Frequently asked questions