Discussion of the Committee on Daubert Standards Summary of Meetings (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Overview of Key Supreme Court Decisions
2 Overview of Key Supreme Court Decisions
Pages 3-6
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 3... ...
All three cases centered on the admissibility of expert testimony concerning the data required to establish causa tion, an exercise that involves synthesis of available evidence, and all three cases recognized that expert testimony must be subject to a strong and careful judicial gatekeeper function. The most recent of the three, Kumho Tire Co.
|
From page 4... ...
A central message of the Daubert decision was the Court's designation of the trial judge as the gatekeeper, responsible for screening expert testimony to determine whether the relevancy and reliability requirements are met. In the second part of his majority opinion, over the dissent of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Stevens, Justice Blackmun wrote that federal judges have a duty to ensure that "an expert's testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." He suggested that the reliabil ity of scientific testimony be judged using the following criteria: 1)
|
From page 5... ...
The Supreme Court then held that in reviewing a trial judge's evidentiary ruling an appellate court must use an abuse of discretion standard, which requires the reviewing court to defer to the rulings of the trial court unless they are clearly in error. The Court concluded that the trial judge had not abused her discretion when she refused to admit the plaintiff's expert testimony, because the claims of a causal connec tion between the exposure and the injury made by the expert witness were too speculative.
|
From page 6... ...
The objective of Daubert's gatekeeping requirement said the Court "is to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field." In toxic tort cases, the plaintiff normally must show (1) plaintiff's exposure to a toxic substance for which the defendant is responsible; (2)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.