D aubert v. M errell D ow P harmaceuticals

Abstract

Abstract Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals is the landmark US Supreme Court case dealing with the admissibility of forensic expert opinion testimony. The opinion was handed down in 1993. Despite the often noted comment that Daubert is to be considered the most important American Court decision dealing with forensic evidence ever decided, its ultimate impact on expert witnessing is also called in question [1]. The decision may be cited by referring to any of the following law reports: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , 509 U.S. 579, 113S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). In Daubert , the Court interpreted the Federal Rules of Evidence (hereinafter FRE) on expert testimony enacted in 1975. Daubert held that the trial judge is to act as a “gatekeeper” in determining whether proffered expert scientific evidence is reliable as well as relevant to the case being litigated. To achieve this result, the Court suggested that the trial judges use a multipart test to guide their reliability evaluation. These suggested guidelines are often referred to as the Daubert factors. Although the decision is technically applicable only to US federal courts, all forensic experts should be familiar with it, because court decisions in other jurisdictions refer to and often rely on it [3]. In other countries, seminars at professional meetings also discuss the impact on forensic science of needing proof to satisfy the Daubert factors. Subsequent court decisions such as General Electric v. Joiner and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael provide further clarification on the admissibility rules of forensic expert testimony. Daubert 's impact on testifying as an expert is seen as revolutionary by many in the forensic sciences, though the decision is also controversial [2]. Some experts believe that its standards are too lenient and others that they are too strict. This article discusses the Court's holding, its influence, and its impact on forensic science.