{"id":13578,"date":"2018-02-10T14:14:47","date_gmt":"2018-02-10T14:14:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13578"},"modified":"2018-02-10T14:14:47","modified_gmt":"2018-02-10T14:14:47","slug":"daubert-hearing-conducted-by-federal-district-courts-usually-before-trial-to-determine-whether-proposed-expert-testimony-meets-the-federal-requirements-for-relevance-and-reliability","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13578","title":{"rendered":"Daubert Hearing – conducted by federal district courts, usually before trial, to determine whether proposed expert testimony meets the federal requirements for relevance and reliability"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This page is continued from >>>> Court Proceedings<\/a> >>>> Criminal Proceedings<\/a> >>>> Phases of a Criminal Court Proceedings<\/a> >>>> Hearing<\/a>:<\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

***********************<\/p>\n

Daubert<\/em> hearing<\/span>:<\/span>
\n<\/strong>(1993)<\/span><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> A hearing conducted by federal district courts, usually before trial, to determine whether proposed expert testimony meets the federal requirements for relevance and reliability, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms, Inc<\/em>., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993)<\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Daubert<\/em> test<\/span>:<\/span><\/strong>
\n(1993)<\/span><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Evidence<\/em>. A method that federal district courts use to determine whether expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702<\/a>, which generally requires that expert testimony consist of scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will assist the fact-tinder in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.\u00a0 *\u00a0 In its role as \u201cgatekeeper\u201d of the evidence, the trial court must decide whether the proposed expert testimony\u00a0meets the requirements of relevance and reliability.\u00a0 The court applies the test outside the jury\u2019s presence, usu. during a pretrial Daubert<\/em> hearing.\u00a0 At the hearing, the proponent must show that the expert\u2019s underlying reasoning or methodology, and its application to the facts, are scientifically valid. In ruling on admissibility, the court considers a flexible list of factors, including <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

(1) whether the theory can be or has been tested,
\n(2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review or publication,
\n(3) the theory\u2019s known or potential rate of error and whether there are standards that control its operation, and
\n(4) the degree to which the relevant scientific community has accepted the theory. <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc<\/em>., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993)<\/span>. Similar scrutiny must be applied to nonscientilic expert testimony. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmi<\/em><\/span><\/span>chael<\/em>, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999)<\/span>. Variations of the Daubert test are applied in the trial courts of most states.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from Bryan A. Garner’s Garner\u2019s Dictionary of Legal Usage<\/em><\/a> (3d ed. 2011):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cFrancophones and gallicism-lovers be warned: Daubert<\/em> is pronounced \/daw-bart\/, not \/doh-bayr\/.\u00a0 The confusion over how to pronounce Daubert<\/em> began (and apparently should have ended) in the Supreme Court when the Chief Justice said \/daw-bert\/ in oral argument.\u00a0 The Dauberts\u2019 lawyer then chose to mispronounce his clients\u2019 name repeatedly rather than correct the Chief Justice.\u00a0 And so the \/daw-bert\/ pronunciation was established ex cathedra by a Chief Justice who went uncorrected.<\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/strong> [2]<\/span><\/p>\n

Daubert<\/em> trilogy<\/span>:<\/span><\/strong>
\n(1999)<\/span><\/p>\n

1. The three U.S. Supreme Court cases that govern the federal standards for admissibility of expert testimony: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc<\/em>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)<\/span>; General Electric v. Joine<\/em>r, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)<\/span>; and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael<\/em>, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)<\/span>.\u00a0 *\u00a0 The Daubert<\/em> trilogy, coupled with Federal Rule of Evidence 702<\/a>, which was amended in response to the many cases applying Daubert<\/em> (including Kumho Tire<\/em>), requires the trial court in its capacity as \u201cgatekeeper\u201d of the evidence to exclude unreliable expert testimony.\u00a0<\/strong> See DAUBERT TEST; EVIDENTIARY RELIABILITY; RELIABILITY. [1]
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

References:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/span><\/span><\/strong> All material throughout this website is compiled in accordance with Fair Use<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]: Black\u2019s Law Dictionary\u00a0Deluxe Tenth Edition\u00a0by Henry Campbell Black & Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner<\/a>. ISBN: 978-0-314-62130-6<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[2]: Bryan A. Garner, Garner\u2019s Dictionary of Legal Usage<\/em><\/a> 246 (3d ed. 2011) (citations omitted).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

*******************************<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Back to<\/span> Hearing<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Back to<\/span> Phases of a Criminal Court Proceedings<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Back to <\/span>Criminal Proceedings<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Back to <\/span><\/span><\/strong>Criminal Law Self-Help<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Home Page<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Like this website?<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Please Support Our Fundraiser<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

or donate via\u00a0PayPal<\/a>:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n