10 Even when not dispositive, Daubert rulings in cases centered around differing opinions from conflicting experts can substantively skew the battleground and tip the scales of justice on credibility issues. The stakes are high in such disputes and failure to meet the standards can result in dismissal or severe limitations on evidence submitted to the jury.Ī Daubert ruling may be dispositive but is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Statutory and evidentiary Daubert factors encompassed in MCL 600.2955 and MRE 702 are frequent fodder for motion practice in tort and business litigation. 9 MRE 702 also incorporates Daubert standards of reliability as a threshold matter of admissibility. Misra clarified that every factor articulated in MCL 600.2955(1) need not be met in every case rather, the relevant factors must be met. However, the Michigan Supreme Court in Ehler v. The Michigan Legislature codified many Daubert factors when it enacted MCL 600.2955, which accounts for multiple factors in assessing the scientific reliability of an expert opinion. 7 The United States Supreme Court further clarified that an expert must “employ in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.” 8 This is true even if there are flaws in the expert’s methods or arguable grounds for alternative conclusions. 6 Under Daubert factors, expert opinion is admissible when supported by particular grounds for the expert’s scientific conclusion. 5 set forth several factors for judicial consideration in evaluating admissibility of scientific evidence. Relevance is determined by whether the evidence “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence to determine a fact in issue.” 3 Reliability requires that the factual basis be in evidence or subject to admission and based on “the methods and procedures of science.” 4ĭaubert v Merrell Down Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Expert testimony based on scientific evidence is admissible if it is both reliable and relevant to the issues being litigated. When litigation involves issues of disputed scientific testimony, the trial court serves as a gatekeeper to ensure that the trier of fact is informed by trustworthy evidence. MAINTAIN A STRONG WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THE DAUBERT FRAMEWORK AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 2 Moreover, by adhering to best practices, expert testimony will be stronger and more persuasive, increasing the chances of success at trial. 1 However, by utilizing best practices, challenges can be avoided or successfully refuted. Daubert challenges can be rife with pitfalls for the unwary practitioner or unprepared expert.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |