What conditions need to be met in order for an expert to be permitted to testify? Discuss the role of judges as "gatekeepers" and the Daubert and Kumho cases.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.In general, a qualified expert can testify about a topic if such testimony is relevant to an issue in dispute and if the usefulness of the testimony outweighs whatever prejudicial impact it might have. If these two conditions are met, an expert will be permitted to testify if the judge believes that the testimony is based on sufficiently relevant and reliable scientific evidence. In other words, under criteria established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999), the judge serves as a "gatekeeper" who must determine whether the theory, methodology, and analysis that are the basis of the expert's opinion measure up to scientific standards. If they meet this standard, the judge will probably admit relevant expert testimony; if they do not, the judge should not allow the testimony. The Daubert and Kumho decisions apply to all cases in federal court. In state court, the prevailing standard may also be Daubert-or it may stem from an earlier decision (Frye v. United States, 1923) holding that expert testimony must be based on techniques and process that are "generally accepted" in the field to which they belong. States have the discretion to decide which standard they will use by passing state legislation.Judges generally do not perform the gatekeeper function well. Many judges lack the scientific training that Daubert/Kumho appears to require. Even for those with substantial scientific training, the range of expert topics about which judges need information is staggering. As a result, many critics, including experts and judges themselves, believe that the difficulty of distinguishing valid from invalid scientific evidence will result in jurors too often being exposed to "expert" testimony that is based on little more than "junk science."There are clear advantages to having mental health professionals provide expert testimony. Mental health professionals have specialized knowledge and training that can provide the court with valuable information in a variety of cases. For example, some psychologists are trained to administer tests to determine neuropsychological problems and symptom genuineness in workers' compensation cases, or are experienced in conducting interviews and obtaining other information from multiple sources in order to assess parental fitness.