Using Expert Witnesses in FCRA Cases - FCRA Focus
Chemical Engineering Expert Witness Experience & Discovery – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 48
Podcast: Science in the Courtroom
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 328: Listen and Learn -- Expert vs. Lay Witness Testimony (Evidence)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 159: Listen and Learn -- Evidence: Expert vs. Lay Witness Testimony
Podcast: What Witness Preparation Means
Podcast: Seven Witness Preparation Mistakes Lawyers Make
Podcast: Raise Your Right Hand, Miss Lillian
Episode 015: Confessions of a Business Appraiser: A Conversation with Chris Mercer
Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 govern the admissibility of lay and expert opinion testimony, respectively, in federal courts. Rule 701(c) helps paint the line between the two, providing that an opinion “based on...more
US courts are issuing guidelines to ensure litigators disclose any use of generative AI in legal proceedings. By now, most of us have heard a story about the misuse of generative AI in the practice of law: the attorney...more
In explaining the December 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Advisory Committee called out several ways in which “many courts” had “incorrectly” applied Rule 702 and failed to adequately discharge their...more
On June 7, 2022, the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure approved amendments to several of the Federal Rules of Evidence—including Rule 702, which governs the admissibility of expert witness...more
If you don’t know where a line is, you can’t say whether someone has crossed it. That principle applies in spades to expert witnesses, particularly when their role in the case calls on them to help the jury understand where...more
Though the pending amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 have not taken effect officially yet, courts already have begun to cite them. Early signs indicate the potential that, consistent with the comments by the Advisory...more
Peer-reviewed literature can be a powerful tool in attacking an opposing expert’s opinions. A solid, on-point article can do more than merely satisfy several of the so-called Daubert factors for assessing reliability – by...more
Federal Rule of Evidence 702—Testimony by Expert Witnesses—was promulgated in 1975 when Congress first enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence. Original Rule 702 simply stated that “[i]f scientific, technical, or other...more
Litigators! Substantive amendments have been proposed to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The public comment period closes February 16. Rule 702 was last amended substantively in 2000, soon after the concluding chapter in...more
Expert testimony is often critical to establish a claim or defense. Expert testimony is allowed where scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the judge or jury to understand the evidence in a case...more
While we all rely on Google or other internet search engines to find and absorb information quickly these days, a recent decision in the Central District of Illinois highlights the problems for expert witnesses relying on...more
Under the now widely-adopted Daubert standard, courts evaluate expert testimony based on the principles and methodology underlying the expert witness’s opinion. Admissibility of expert testimony is not governed by whether the...more
Federal Judge Robert J. Hemphill defined an expert witness as “a man you pay to say your way.” When those words were spoken in 1978, the venerable Frye standard, enunciated in 1923, governed the admissibility of expert...more
The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules will continue this fall its ongoing discussions on amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702. The two possible amendments being considered for FRE 702 include...more
Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, was most recently amended in 2000 in response to Daubert and its progeny. In response to concerns about misapplication, the Advisory Committee...more
The Fourth District Court of Appeal recently issued a reminder that Daubert is the standard for all disputes regarding admissibility of expert testimony in Florida, and applies retroactively even where Frye was the standard...more
In In re: Accutane Litigation (A-4952-16T1) — an appeal decided just 10 days after oral argument — the New Jersey Appellate Division applied the New Jersey Supreme Court’s landmark decision In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J....more
Certifying an antitrust class under Rule 23 has become a battle. In the last 20 years, courts have been changing the game around Rule 23 interpretation, and rigorous analysis at class certification has made briefing...more
Amateur philosophers, bar flies, and eulogists, among others, are known to wistfully observe that nothing dies so long as it is remembered and discussed. That’s a comforting sentiment when it comes to loved ones and legacies,...more
In a recently issued order, ALJ Lord granted-in-part and denied-in-part Respondents’ motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of Complainants’ expert. Certain Radio Frequency Microneedle Dermatological Treatment Devices...more
Seven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye,...more
In 2013, spurred by the decisions in Marsh and Hood, the Florida Legislature amended F.S. 90.702 to mirror Federal Rule of Evidence 702. In a preamble to the final bill, the Legislature expressed its intent to (1) adopt the...more
The steady but sometimes slow adoption by the states of the Daubert standard for expert admissibility, and the accompanying recession of the Frye standard, is something of a coming of age for the national jurisprudence. Frye...more
In a recently issued pair of orders, ALJ Lord denied both Respondents’ and Complainants’ motions in limine to exclude certain expert testimony. Certain Radio Frequency Microneedle Dermatological Treatment Devices and...more