Throughout several of these cases, there was discussion of whether experts were allowed to address the ‘ultimate legal issue’ Some practitioners believed that it was acceptable practice the law originally indicated that the expert could not, but later suggested that an expert could address some of the elements of the ultimate issue. In 1999, The USSC expanded on Daubert with Kumho, noting that the criteria enumerated in Daubert were only guidelines, and discussed criteria for non-scientific testimony which was called ‘experience based’. The court allowed the expert’s testimony because it satisfied the standard set forth in Daubert, regardless of whether a more accurate test might have existed. It described the criteria for accepting scientific testimony, and while it made reference to other forms of expert testimony, it did not discuss those criteria. The court responded that Daubert requires only scientific validity for admissibility, not scientific precision. One thing not discussed in these rules was the definition of “reasonably relied upon” and this laid the groundwork for the Daubert criteria which were discussed by the United States Supreme Court in 1993. Further, the information had to be reasonably relied upon by other experts in the same field. The expert witness should not provide expert medical testimony that is false, misleading, or without medical foundation.2 The key to this process is a thorough review of available and appropriate medical records and contemporaneous literature concerning the case being examined. Expert testimony is presented in legal proceedings when a judge or jury needs assistance evaluating a material fact in a court proceeding. Combating improper judicial applications of Rule 702. This was the most widely used standard until the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975 which stressed the idea of an expert having specific knowledge that would assist the judge or jury in making a decision knowledge that a lay person would not have. Hence the pressing need for an amendment that clearly prescribes the admissibility standards of expert opinion testimony under Rule 702 and emphasizes the active gatekeeping function of the judge in assessing the reliability of expert evidence. (a) the experts scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand. A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if. U.S., a 1923 case that described the need for the expert’s theory or methodology to be ‘generally accepted’ in the relevant scientific community. 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. Section 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses. The first case that dealt with the criteria for admissibility of expert testimony was Frye v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |