Evidence · Daubert
Clear answer to: How Does Daubert in Evidence? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.
The Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert testimony, requiring that such testimony be both relevant and reliable. It emphasizes the judge's role as a gatekeeper to ensure that scientific evidence meets appropriate standards prior to admission.
The Daubert standard originates from the Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), wherein the Court set forth a framework for determining the admissibility of expert witness evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. This standard replaced the previous Frye standard, which only required that scientific evidence be 'generally accepted' within its field. Under Daubert, a judge must assess whether the reasoning or methodology behind the testimony is scientifically valid and applicable to the facts of the case.
To determine the reliability of expert testimony, the Daubert framework considers several factors, including whether the theory or technique has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, the known or potential error rate, the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation, and the degree of acceptance within the relevant scientific community.
Additionally, the Daubert ruling places significant responsibility on trial judges, not only to evaluate the expert's qualifications but also to perform a preliminary assessment of the scientific validity of the evidence. This elevates the gatekeeping role of judges, leading to more thorough scrutiny of expert evidence compared to the Frye standard.
Subsequent cases, including Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) and General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997), further clarified the Daubert standard, establishing that it applies to all types of expert evidence, not just scientific testimony. These principles reinforce the expectation that expert testimony must be founded on rigorous intellectual rigor and not merely anecdotal experiences.
Overall, the Daubert standard aims to ensure that juries are not misled by unreliable expert opinions, thereby enhancing the integrity of the judicial process and the accuracy of judicial outcomes.
In a case where a medical expert is called to testify about the risks of a drug based on their research, the judge must first assess whether the expert's methodology is scientifically valid and relevant to the specific issues at stake. If the expert's method has not been peer-reviewed or is not widely accepted in the medical community, the judge may exclude the testimony under the Daubert standard.
On exams, you may be asked to analyze the admissibility of expert testimony using the Daubert framework or to distinguish between Daubert and Frye standards. Anticipate hypotheticals requiring application of the factors set forth in Daubert.