On this page you will read detailed information about Rule 702.
As an attorney, you must stay abreast of changes to rules that impact your practice. When amendments are made to the Federal Rules of Evidence that govern the admissibility of expert testimony, this directly affects how you develop your case strategy and examine witnesses. New revisions to Rule 702 establish more stringent requirements for qualifying expert witnesses based on their knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education. Meeting these higher standards demands a thoughtful approach in presenting testimony to demonstrate relevance and reliability. In this article, we will explore the implications of the Rule 702 changes so you can adjust your litigation practice accordingly.
Overview of New Federal Rule of Evidence 702
The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admission of expert witness testimony in federal courts. Rule 702, governing testimony by expert witnesses, was amended in 2000 to reflect the Supreme Court’s decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. Under the amended Rule 702, a witness qualified as an expert by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” may provide opinion testimony if:
- The expert’s specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
- The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
- The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
- The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The trial judge acts as a “gatekeeper” to ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable. This involves a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and whether that reasoning or methodology can be applied to the facts in issue. The court focuses on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions. The key is whether the expert has sufficient specialized knowledge, through experience, training, skill or education to assist the trier of fact.
Factors considered by the court in determining reliability include whether the theory or technique can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, the known or potential rate of error, the existence of standards controlling the technique’s operation, and whether the theory or technique is generally accepted by the scientific community.
The amendment reflects the Supreme Court’s decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. The objective of this new rule is to ensure the reliability and relevancy of expert testimony, requiring federal judges to evaluate the reasoning and methodology behind the proposed expert testimony. Rule 702 promotes empirically sound and reliable expert testimony in federal courts.
In the previous post, we had shared information about Understanding American Motorcycle Law: What Every Rider Needs to Know.
Key Changes in Rule 702 Regarding Expert Testimony
When determining the admissibility of expert testimony, Rule 702 establishes criteria judges must consider. The 2000 amendment to Rule 702 brought several key changes aiming to tighten standards for allowing expert testimony in federal court.
Relevance and Reliability
Expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, must be the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness must have reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Judges act as gatekeepers, only allowing expert testimony that meets these relevancy and reliability standards.
Qualifications of the Expert Witness
The expert witness must be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to give the proposed testimony. While experts do not need formal educational degrees or certifications, their expertise must match the subject matter of their testimony. Judges consider the totality of the expert’s qualifications in determining if they meet Rule 702 standards.
Opinions Must Be Based on Sufficient Facts or Data
Expert opinions must have an adequate basis in fact. Speculation or subjective belief alone do not provide sufficient foundation for expert testimony. Experts must ground their opinions in facts, studies, tests, specialized knowledge, or other evidence appropriate for the issue at hand. Judges evaluate whether the facts or data the expert relies upon are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in that field.
Testimony Must Be the Product of Reliable Principles and Methods
The expert’s principles, methods, and reasoning must be reliable and scientifically valid. Judges consider factors like whether the methodology can be tested, has been subjected to peer review, has a known error rate, and is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. The goal is to exclude “junk science” from the courtroom.
In summary, the 2000 changes to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 set forth heightened standards for admissibility of expert witness testimony. By requiring judges to rigorously examine the relevance, reliability, qualifications, methodology, and factual basis for expert opinions, the amendment aimed to limit the introduction of questionable or unsupported expert testimony in federal litigation.
How Courts Now Assess Expert Testimony Under Rule 702
Under the revised Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, courts now undertake a stricter assessment of expert testimony to determine its admissibility. The rule requires that expert opinion evidence must be based on sound scientific or technical methodology to be admissible.
Reliability
Courts evaluate whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the expert’s testimony is scientifically valid or reliable. The factors considered include whether the theory or technique:
- Can be or has been tested;
- Has been subjected to peer review or publication;
- Has a known or potential error rate;
- Has standards controlling its operation; and
- Has achieved widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
Expert opinion not grounded in a reliable scientific method will be excluded.
Relevance
The revised rule requires that expert testimony must be relevant to be admissible. The testimony must properly tie facts of the case to the conclusions, and not just be scientifically valid in the abstract. The expert must explain how their knowledge and experience are connected to the pertinent inquiry in the case. Testimony not sufficiently tied to the facts of the case will be excluded as irrelevant.
Sufficiency
There must be a sufficient factual basis for the expert’s testimony. The data, facts or observations upon which the expert relied must be outlined within the testimony. The court will determine whether there are enough facts and data to support the expert’s conclusions. Insufficient factual support will render the testimony inadmissible.
Under the revised rule, judges act as gatekeepers to ensure expert testimony meets standards of reliability and relevance before admitting it. Stricter scrutiny is applied to determine if the methodology and reasoning underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and the opinions are properly supported and connected to the specific facts of the case. This helps prevent “junk science” from reaching the jury and influencing verdicts. Overall, the changes to Rule 702 have strengthened and improved the use of expert evidence in federal trials.
Implications of Rule 702 for Experts Looking to Testify
If you are an expert witness looking to testify in federal court, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of your testimony. As an expert, it is critical you understand the implications of this rule to ensure your testimony will be deemed admissible.
Rule 702 requires that an expert witness be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” To meet this standard, you must demonstrate expertise in your field through degrees, certifications, publications, or work experience. The court has discretion to determine if a witness is qualified as an expert by their knowledge or experience.
Your testimony must also be “based on sufficient facts or data” and be the “product of reliable principles and methods.” This demands that your opinions and conclusions are supported by factual evidence, studies, tests, or other objective standards in your field. Subjective beliefs or speculation will likely not satisfy this element of Rule 702.
The final requirement is that the “witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” Here, you must show how you applied your expertise to the specific issues before the court. Your analysis should demonstrate the same intellectual rigor you would use outside the legal context. Failure to properly apply reliable methodology may lead a court to exclude your testimony.
In summary, to have your expert testimony admitted under Rule 702, you must establish your qualifications, show your opinions are based on sufficient facts and reliable methods, and demonstrate how you applied sound principles to the issues in the case. By understanding Rule 702 and its implications for experts, you can present opinions and conclusions in federal court that will assist the trier of fact.
Rule 702 FAQ: Answering Common Questions About the Rule
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony in federal court. As with any rule, questions frequently arise about its scope and application. Here are some of the most common questions and answers about Rule 702:
For expert testimony to be admissible under Rule 702, the witness must be qualified as an expert, the testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, the testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods, and the expert must have reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
An expert witness must have specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to qualify as an expert in a particular field or on a specific topic. Rule 702 does not require any particular credentials for expert testimony but courts consider factors like education, work experience, skills, and practice. The key is that the expert possesses knowledge beyond that of the average person.
Reliable methodologies and principles are those that have been tested, subjected to peer review and publication, have a known or potential error rate, and are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. The court has discretion to determine reliability based on the facts of each case. Methodologies that are speculative, subjective or not scientifically valid will not meet the reliability requirement.
No, expert opinions must be based on facts or data in the record or personally known or observed by the expert witness. An expert cannot base an opinion solely on hearsay or speculation. The facts or data underlying an expert’s opinion must be independently admissible. If not, the court may exclude the testimony.
Conclusion
As you have seen, Rule 702 and its interpretation have undergone significant changes over the years. The Supreme Court’s Daubert decision and subsequent case law established more stringent standards for expert testimony to be admissible in federal court. The 2000 amendment to Rule 702 codified these rulings into the rule itself, emphasizing the trial judge’s gatekeeping role in evaluating reliability and relevance. However, ambiguity remains in how courts assess expert methodology. Understanding Rule 702 and keeping up with developments in case law remains critical for attorneys seeking to qualify experts or challenge opposing testimony. Carefully applying the rule’s criteria to proposed testimony is key to achieving admissibility or exclusion. We hope this examination has provided useful background and guidance in working with expert witnesses under the federal rules.
Disclaimer
The information and services on this website are not intended to and shall not be used as legal advice. You should consult a Legal Professional for any legal or solicited advice. While we have good faith and our own independent research to every information listed on the website and do our best to ensure that the data provided is accurate. However, we do not guarantee the information provided is accurate and make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information on the Site. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL WE HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE SITE. YOUR USE OF THE SITE AND YOUR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION ON THE SITE IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of their writers so the accuracy, completeness, veracity, honesty, factuality and politeness of comments are not guaranteed.
So friends, today we talked about Rule 702, hope you liked our post.
If you liked the information about Rule 702, then definitely share this article with your friends.
