In Joiner, a city utility employee sued the manufacturers of electrical transformers and their fluid after he developed small cell lung cancer from exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) found inside the transformers. Joiner,8 the court held that abuse of discretion is the standard applicable to review of a district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert scientific evidence under Daubert.
DAUBERT MOTION IN LIMINE HOW TO
Supreme Court provided much-needed guidance to trial court judges on how to conduct its newly defined gatekeeping duty.7In 1997, in General Electric v. In two additional cases (also known as the Daubert trilogy), the U.S. The following article will discuss a brief history of Daubert and its progeny as well as developments in Daubert’s line in the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and in Oklahoma.
The Daubert court provided a set of general and nondefinitive observations to aid federal judges in their inquiries, sometimes referred to as the “ Daubert factors:” 1) whether the theory or technique has been tested 2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication 3) what is the known or potential rate of error and the standards governing the technique and 4) is there a scientific community in which the technique or theory is generally accepted.6 The Daubertframework through federal courts and Oklahoma state courts took unique paths but in time have grown increasingly in sync. The Daubert court created an evidentiary “gatekeeper” role for trial court judges, requiring them to perform a two-pronged analysis when considering expert testimony: first asking is the evidence reliable, and second, is it relevant? Regarding reliability, the court reasoned that FRE 702 requires “the subject of an expert’s testimony be ‘scientific knowledge,’” scientific meaning having a “grounding in the methods and procedures of science.” Similarly, the “knowledge” must not be speculation but “derived by the scientific method” and “supported by appropriate validation – i.e.‘good grounds,’ based on what is known.”4 For the relevance prong, the trier of fact must ask whether expert testimony offered is “fit,” meaning it is “sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute.”5
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,1 shed the austere Frye2 “general acceptance in the scientific community” standard for admitting expert testimony, ruling that the Federal Rules of Evidence (specifically FRE 702) “occupied the field.”3 Daubert arose from a suit against the manufacturers of Bendectin, an anti-nausea medication prescribed to the pregnant mothers of two plaintiffs who alleged the medication caused their children to have birth defects.
0 kommentar(er)
