|
The ''Daubert'' standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a ''Daubert'' motion, which is a special case of motion ''in limine'' raised before or during trial to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The ''Daubert'' trilogy refers to the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard: : *''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals'', which held in 1993 that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye "general acceptance" test as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, but that the rule incorporated a flexible reliability standard instead; : *''General Electric Co. v. Joiner'',〔522 U.S. 136 (1997)〕 which held that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and his conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether it should admit expert testimony; : *''Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael'',〔526 U.S. 137 (1999)〕 which held in 1999 that the judge's gatekeeping function identified in ''Daubert'' applies to all expert testimony, including that which is non-scientific. Important appellate-level opinions that clarify the standard include Judge Kozinski's opinion in Daubert on remand ((''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'', 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995) )), and Judge Becker's opinion in ''In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig.'', 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994). ==Definition== In Daubert, seven members of the Court agreed on the following guidelines for admitting scientific expert testimony: *Judge is gatekeeper: Under Rule 702, the task of "gatekeeping", or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from "scientific knowledge", rests on the trial judge. *Relevance and reliability: This requires the trial judge to ensure that the expert's testimony is "relevant to the task at hand" and that it rests "on a reliable foundation". ''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.'', 509 U.S. 579, 584-587. Concerns about expert testimony cannot be simply referred to the jury as a question of weight. Furthermore, the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 104(a), not Rule 104(b); thus, the Judge must find it more likely than not that the expert's methods are reliable and reliably applied to the facts at hand. *Scientific knowledge = scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as ''scientific knowledge'' if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.〔Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'' (1993) 509 U.S. 579, 589.〕 *Factors relevant: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a nondispositive, nonexclusive, "flexible" set of "general observations" (i.e. not a "test") 〔Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593 (1993)〕 that it considered relevant for establishing the "validity" of scientific testimony: :# Empirical testing: whether the theory or technique is falsifiable, refutable, and/or testable. :# Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication. :# The known or potential error rate. :# The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation. :# The degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community. In 2000, Rule 702 was amended in an attempt to codify and structure elements embodied in the "''Daubert'' trilogy." The rule then read as follows: Rule 702. Testimony by Experts In 2011, Rule 702 was again amended to make the language clearer. The rule now reads: RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES 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: (a) 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Daubert standard」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|