Expert Testimony (Litigator Series)
Book Details
Author(s)LandMark Publications
PublisherLandMark Publications
ISBN / ASINB00ZO3P1P2
ISBN-13978B00ZO3P1P8
MarketplaceFrance 🇫🇷
Description
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 193 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and and discuss issues surrounding the admissibility and use of expert testimony. The selection of decisions spans from 2010 to the date of publication.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states that an expert witness "who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if":
(1) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (3) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (4) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Rule 702 embodies the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which emphasizes the trial courts' role as "gatekeepers" to ensure that proffered expert testimony is "not only relevant, but reliable." "The reliability prong mandates that expert opinion 'be grounded in the methods and procedures of science and . . . be more than unsupported speculation or subjective belief.'" "The relevance prong requires that the proponent demonstrate that the expert's 'reasoning or methodology can be properly applied to the facts in issue.'" Macy v. Whirlpool Corporation, (5th Cir. 2015).
If a layperson is capable of understanding an issue without the aid of an expert, a district court may properly decline to admit expert testimony on that issue on the ground that it would not be helpful to the jury. See United States v. Salimonu, 182 F.3d 63, 74 (1st Cir. 1999). US v. Navedo-Ramirez, (1st Cir. 2015).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires parties to timely disclose their expert witnesses in accordance with any deadlines set by the district court. The rule further requires parties to disclose a "written report," "prepared and signed by the witness," and containing the following:
(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;
(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;
(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;
(iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;
(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and
(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). Failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a) results in automatic and mandatory exclusion of the proffered witness "unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). Novak v. Bd. of Trustees of S. Ill. Univ., 777 F. 3d 966 (7th Cir. 2015).
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states that an expert witness "who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if":
(1) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (3) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (4) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Rule 702 embodies the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which emphasizes the trial courts' role as "gatekeepers" to ensure that proffered expert testimony is "not only relevant, but reliable." "The reliability prong mandates that expert opinion 'be grounded in the methods and procedures of science and . . . be more than unsupported speculation or subjective belief.'" "The relevance prong requires that the proponent demonstrate that the expert's 'reasoning or methodology can be properly applied to the facts in issue.'" Macy v. Whirlpool Corporation, (5th Cir. 2015).
If a layperson is capable of understanding an issue without the aid of an expert, a district court may properly decline to admit expert testimony on that issue on the ground that it would not be helpful to the jury. See United States v. Salimonu, 182 F.3d 63, 74 (1st Cir. 1999). US v. Navedo-Ramirez, (1st Cir. 2015).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires parties to timely disclose their expert witnesses in accordance with any deadlines set by the district court. The rule further requires parties to disclose a "written report," "prepared and signed by the witness," and containing the following:
(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;
(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;
(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;
(iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;
(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and
(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). Failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a) results in automatic and mandatory exclusion of the proffered witness "unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). Novak v. Bd. of Trustees of S. Ill. Univ., 777 F. 3d 966 (7th Cir. 2015).
More Books by LandMark Publications
