Scientific testimony in federal and state judicial proceedings has become more essential than ever, according to an expert analysis in Law 360. A ruling on whether an expert’s proposed testimony is admissible may mean the difference between the dismissal of thousands of product liability cases and a multibillion-dollar settlement.
“State trial judges’ failure to adhere to Daubert expert testimony admissibility standards can produce runaway jury verdicts,” according to Lawrence Ebner, executive vice president and general counsel at the Atlantic Legal Foundation. “When a trial judge abdicates this responsibility by allowing expert witnesses to deposit a heap of junk science in front of a jury box, appellate courts not only need to correct that injustice, but also establish a precedent that will foster sound science in judicial proceedings.”
Expert testimony was also the topic of ILR’s recent research paper, Fact or Fiction. The paper outlines the state of expert evidence standards around the country, explores key issues and concerns supporting a more universal adoption of Daubert and further amendment of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and offers recommendations for promoting these changes.