Expert Witness Procedures
Expert Witness Procedures: Overview
An expert witness is someone qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education who may testify in court to provide specialized opinions to help the judge or jury understand complex evidence.
Key issues around expert witnesses include:
Qualification of the expert
The relevance and reliability of their testimony
The admissibility standards (e.g., Frye, Daubert)
The limits on what an expert can opine about
Expert witness testimony is heavily regulated to ensure that only credible and helpful expert opinions influence the outcome of a case.
1. Frye v. United States (1923)
Key Principle: General acceptance test for scientific evidence
Facts: The defendant wanted to admit results from a systolic blood pressure deception test (an early lie detector test) as evidence.
Issue: Should scientific evidence be admitted if it is not widely accepted by the relevant scientific community?
Ruling: The Court held that expert testimony based on novel scientific techniques must be generally accepted by the scientific community to be admissible.
Significance: This established the Frye standard, which focuses on the scientific method’s acceptance rather than just the judge’s discretion. This was the dominant test for decades.
2. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993)
Key Principle: Judge as gatekeeper of scientific testimony; flexible reliability test
Facts: Plaintiffs claimed birth defects caused by a drug; experts testified using scientific methods not widely accepted at the time.
Issue: What standards should courts use to admit expert scientific testimony?
Ruling: The Supreme Court rejected the rigid Frye test and held that the trial judge must act as a gatekeeper to ensure the expert’s methodology is scientifically valid and relevant.
Factors considered include: testability, peer review, error rates, and general acceptance.
Significance: The Daubert standard is more flexible and emphasizes reliability and relevance over general acceptance.
3. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999)
Key Principle: Daubert applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific
Facts: A tire expert testified about a tire failure causing an accident.
Issue: Does the Daubert standard apply only to scientific experts or to all expert testimony, including technical and specialized knowledge?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held Daubert applies to all expert testimony, whether scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.
Significance: This expanded Daubert’s gatekeeping role to all expert witnesses, not just scientists.
4. General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997)
Key Principle: Abuse of discretion standard for trial court’s evidentiary rulings on experts
Facts: Plaintiffs claimed exposure to chemicals caused cancer; experts used animal studies and analogies to support causation.
Issue: When can an appellate court overturn a trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony?
Ruling: The Court ruled that appellate courts should apply a deferential abuse of discretion standard, meaning trial judges have wide latitude in deciding the admissibility of expert testimony.
Significance: Reinforced the trial court’s gatekeeping power and gave trial judges strong discretion to exclude or admit expert testimony.
5. Daubert Trilogy Summary (Daubert, Kumho, Joiner)
Daubert: Trial judges must ensure expert testimony is relevant and reliable.
Kumho: Applies Daubert gatekeeping to all experts, not just scientists.
Joiner: Appellate courts defer to trial courts on expert testimony admissibility unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Frye v. U.S. | General acceptance test | Early standard for scientific evidence |
| Daubert v. Merrell Dow | Judge as gatekeeper; flexible reliability | Modern standard focusing on relevance and reliability |
| Kumho Tire v. Carmichael | Daubert applies to all experts | Expanded gatekeeping to all expert testimony |
| General Electric v. Joiner | Abuse of discretion on admissibility decisions | Trial judges given broad discretion |
Additional Notes on Procedure:
Qualification: Before testifying, experts must be qualified by the court, based on their knowledge or skill.
Voir Dire: Experts may be questioned before giving testimony to challenge their qualifications or methodology.
Daubert/Kumho Hearings: Courts often hold pre-trial hearings to assess whether expert testimony meets admissibility standards.
Limitations: Experts cannot give opinions on ultimate legal questions (e.g., “Did the defendant act negligently?”), but they can explain facts and specialized knowledge.
RELATED Blog
0 comments