Expert Witness Blog

When hiring an expert witness, make sure to allow time to research their background. Waiting until the last minute to hire an expert could be trouble. An important factor is an accurate assessment of an expert’s qualifications history in court. There is compelling statistical evidence to suggest that experts who have been allowed to testify after previous attempts to exclude them (i.e. who have passed “Daubert muster”) are more likely to withstand similar challenges in the future. Just as importantly, knowing the opponent’s expert’s qualification history can be valuable in challenging that expert, or in developing a strategy to attack the expert’s methodology and credibility. The “Daubert Tracker” (available at www.mdexonline.com) is a good place to start. Its primary focus is on the researching of the “evidentiary gatekeeping” history of experts.

Defendant Marie Lindor, who was sued by the Recording Industry for allegedly infringing on their exclusive rights by downloading, distributing and/or making available for distribution certain sound recordings using an online media distribution system, has moved to exclude the trial testimony of the RIAA's security expert witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson. Ms. Lindor argues that the expert witness' deposition testimony establishes that his trial testimony could not meet the standards for reliability of expert testimony prescribed by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

The interesting letter brief can be read in its entirety here: letter brief

Given the extreme importance of expert testimony to litigation, is the reliability test for expert testimony set out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals the most radical and consequential change in the modern law of evidence? Before Daubert, most courts in most circumstances required only that an expert witness be at least marginally qualified to testify on the subject at hand, and that his testimony be relevant to an issue in the case. Many courts applied the general acceptance test set out in Frye to limited categories of scientific evidence, primarily in criminal cases. Even in Frye jurisdictions, generally testimony was allowed in most areas of expertise.

Many argue that the Daubert standard takes the issue of sufficiency of evidence and turns it into issues of admissibility. (See Richard D. Friedman: Squeezing Daubert Out of the Pciture) However, aren't jurors and fact finders wise enough not to be misled by expert's opinions? Those who ask this question would certainly point out that there are not similar reliability standards for lay witnesses, and for other types of evidence.