During trial, attorneys are required to practice and follow the rules of evidence while presenting their case to regulate what the jury can use to reach its verdict. In the United States, federal courts follow the Federal Rules of Evidence and state courts normally follow their own state rules. Given the variations in state rules of evidence across jurisdictions, the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) will be used to explain the concept of expert testimony. The utilization of expert testimony under Rule 702, supplemented by the guidelines provided in the Daubert ruling, outlines a framework ensuring that only relevant, reliable, and qualified expert opinions are given to the jury.
Understanding Rule 702
Experts possess specialized skills, knowledge, training, experience and/or education that goes beyond the average person’s understanding as an insurance bad faith lawyer can explain to you. By applying their superior knowledge to the facts of a case, experts provide insights that help jurors understand certain evidence or determine a fact in issue. Rule 702 sets forth the conditions under which an expert witness may provide testimony. The rule hinges on four criteria:
- The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue,
- The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data,
- The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
- The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
For expert testimony to be admitted, it must not only stem from reliable principles and methods but must also be applied reliably to the facts of the case. This dual requirement ensures that testimony is both scientifically valid and pertinent to the specific issues at hand. In turn, experts are not merely giving a lecture on the stand, but instead applying their expertise to the context of the case, effectively ruling out alternative explanations where appropriate.
Expanding Rule 702 The Daubert Factors
After the United State’s Supreme Court ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., judges have wide discretion in qualifying experts to determine the reliability of their testimony. This case expanded Rule 702 to include factors other than general acceptance within an expert’s field. When considering if an expert is qualified, judges look to factors such as: if the expert’s theory can be tested, if the theory has been subject to peer review articles and publications, if there is a known error rate, and if there are standards controlling the techniques operation.
Qualifying An Expert
Most of the time, attorneys argue over the admissibility of expert testimony in pretrial motions, known as motions in limine. However, if a party wishes to introduce a witness as an expert on the stand, there are three steps that must be followed. First, the attorney must lay the foundation by asking the expert about their credentials and qualifications. After moving to certify the witness as an expert, the opposing counsel will have the opportunity to voir dire the expert to challenge their credentials. Lastly, the judge will take into consideration the expert’s reliability using the Daubert factors, the attorney’s arguments, and rule on a motion to certify.
The careful vetting of expert witnesses remains a pivotal part of legal strategy. By following the factors in Rule 702 along with the criterion set forth in Daubert, the introduction of expert testimony provides the court with factual accuracy and specialized knowledge. This ensures that the trier of fact is equipped with insights critical for informed decision-making.
Thanks to Eglet Adams Eglet Ham and Henriod for their insight on Expert Testimony.
If you are facing a legal case and need help, contact a lawyer near you immediately.