Daubert

Daubert refers to the legal precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in 1993 which defined the criteria for admissibility of expert witness testimony in the Federal Courts.  The Daubert ruling (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579) superseded the long-standing Frye standard (set in 1923) for expert witness testimony.

Daubert criteria

The criteria set by Daubert is two-pronged:

• Relevant: whether or not the expert’s evidence “fits” the facts of the case
• Reliable:
  • (1) whether the methods upon which the testimony is based are centered upon a testable hypothesis;
  • (2) the known or potential rate of error associated with the method;
  • (3) whether the method has been subject to peer review; and
  • (4) whether the method is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

With a ruling that carries such impact on cases, there has understandably been quite a bit of confusion and interpretation of this standard.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702

An important factor underlying the Daubert standard is detailed in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which states:

“Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

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, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”

So the expert testimony is warranted if it will assist the trier in the establishment of a fact and if the witness applied reliable principles and method to the facts.

Beyond Scientific Knowledge: Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael

In a further clarification of the Daubert standard, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that the standard “applies not only to testimony based on ‘scientific’ knowledge, but also to testimony based on ‘technical’ and ‘other specialized’ knowledge.”  In one sense, this closed a loop hold used when an expert witness was classified as “non-scientific” and thus a strict reading of the Daubert standard meant the criteria did not apply.

State by State Adoption of Daubert

The following is a list of States status with regard to accepting the Daubert standard in their State court proceedings.

States which fully apply Daubert:

1. Connecticut
2. Delaware
3. Georgia
4. Indiana
5. Kentucky
6. Louisiana
7. North Carolina
8. Ohio
9. Oklahoma
10. Oregon
11. Rhode Island
12. South Dakota
13. Tennessee
14. Vermont
15. Washington
16. West Virginia
17. Wyoming

States which apply Daubert-like standard:

1. Alabama
2. Arkansas
3. Colorado
4. Hawaii
5. Idaho
6. Iowa
7. Maine
8. Montana
9. Nevada
10. Texas
11. Utah

States will apply Frye standard:

1. Alaska
2. Arizona
3. California
4. Florida
5. Illinois
6. Kansas
7. Massachusetts
8. Maryland
9. Michigan
10. Minnesota
11. Mississippi
12. Missouri
13. Nebraska
14. New Hampshire
15. New Jersey
16. New Mexico
17. New York
18. Pennsylvania

And finally the following states have developed their own standards:

1. North Dakota
2. South Carolina
3. Virginia
4. Wisconsin