Most importantly, the breadth of Rule 702, along with the case law that follows, establishes that exclusion of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule. In consideration of Daubert’s holding that the court functions as a “gatekeeper,” Rule 702 grants wide judicial discretion in determining admissibility. Although the specific Daubert factors are not codified in Rule 702, Rule 702 was amended broadly enough to allow consideration of any of the factors enumerated in Daubert and its progeny. 579 (1993), which outlines a non-exhaustive list of factors for the courts to consider when determining the expert testimony admissibility. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. Rule 702 was amended in response to the seminal Supreme Court decision, Daubert v. The overarching aim of Rule 702 is to establish the relevance and reliability of the expert’s opinion. the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods.the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data.the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.It states that an expert’s opinion is admissible if: Rule 702 is arguably the crux of Article VII, as it guides the court’s analysis in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. As discussed below, the admissibility of expert testimony is both different from and more lenient than that of lay opinions. The proponent of lay opinion testimony must provide the court not only with information establishing the witness’ personal knowledge, but must also show that the opinion is rationally related to those facts and is helpful to the jury. Lay opinions must rely on facts personally observed.
Under Rule 701, courts scrutinize lay opinions by determining whether the testimony is based on the witness’ own experience base and everyday reasoning.
Subsection (c) is a direct contrast to the definition of expert testimony in the subsequent rule. Subsection (a) requires first-hand knowledge or observation, while subsection (b) demands a lay witness opinion that is meaningful and carries more conviction than a broad assertion. It states that if a witness is not testifying as an expert, opinion testimony must be: a) rationally based on the witness’s perception b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue and c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. The first rule in Article VII begins by defining expert testimony by what it is not – lay witness testimony. Rule 701 – Opinion Testimony By Lay Witnesses An understanding of Article VII is critical for any lawyer seeking to introduce or exclude expert testimony at trial.
Article VII of the Federal Rules of Evidence, comprised of six rules, covers the admissibility of expert witness testimony.
0 kommentar(er)
