Federal Rule of Evidence: A Critical Discussion
According to Scott (2010), Federal Rules of Evidence is a legal field that encompasses the provision of legitimate evidence as far as facts and data are concerned. The act was enacted in 1975 where all parties in the United States of America were to strictly adhere to factual admissibility of the evidence whether civil or criminal.
As far as evidence is concerned, the law requires that facts are proofed beyond a reasonable doubt during the court execution process. Before the 20th century, evidence was based on the decision of law which was faced with a myriad of challenges but later for instance; the California evidence code initiated a codification of popular law evidence into rules that were to be strictly followed. Lawyers and legal scholars embarked on the enactment of rules that would govern the admissibility of evidence in the courts (Scott, 2010).
The drafts that were enacted encompassed many rules that came into effect in 1975 after a Watergate scandal which made the rules to be used in a federal law court. However, the rules were not restyled until the 2000 FRE amendment. This only facilitated the rule enabling act to make the amendment that would see the rules more admissible. Testimony by expert witnesses under rule number 702 of the federal rule of evidence is one area that was enacted to ensure factuality and sufficiency are upheld (Rothstein et al., 2003).
The writer of this paper has introduced the reader to the federal rule of evidence and how it came into effect. The writer has noted that it was from this rule that the expert witness rule was initiated. Having discussed this, the paper will embark on expert witness testimony, a major segment in the federal rule of evidence.
Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Legal scholars have stated have defined expert witnesses as one who exhibits various portraits in education, skills, and experiences and is knowledgeable in a certain field that is not measurable and comparable to average persons. By average person, it means that the person is knowledgeable enough to offer proof of information before a court proceeding where other persons are not an acquaintance of the information. The content that such individuals are legally reliable in the provision of facts in the courtroom. This particular witness is regarded as specialized either scientifically, technically, or by any other opinions that will make the case admissible. Some scholars have referred to them as “experts” since they lead to fact-finding (Bronstein, 2009).
In a challenging scenario, for example, expert witnesses are capable of providing expert evidence emanating from their expertise. As such, this may lead to a rebuttal of their claims which may affect their reputations. A case in point is that of Davie v. Magistrates of Edinburgh, 102 S.C. 34 (1953). In this case, a witness was called to give a testimony regarding his area of specialization and in addition, the witness provided his opinion that lead to the conclusion he submitted to the court during the examining process. From this example, it is clear that the testimony by an expert witness should be reliable for admissibility assurance.
Over time, the intelligence involved in the scrutiny of the facts has been difficult. To curb the issue, scientific and technical or any specialized arena has to play a fundamental role to execute the evaluation process during the evidential process. In the words of Bronstein (2009), he asserts that the source of entire information to validate the evidence must be given by an expert witness.
Some scholarly literature like that of Dwyer (2008) affirms that most experts have been providing information based on their opinion. Dwyer has contended that any testimony that is opinionated by experts has got no basic foundation.
As such, he explains that for a witness to remain useful in any lawsuit, dissertation, or what Bronstein (2009) refers to as exposition should be employed. In this regard, they assert that such an aspect makes use of scientific principle to discriminate any irrelevance that may occur in the court.
When the principles of science, as well as that of technicality, are employed, the Trier has no choice but to comply with the fact submitted. However, it has been noted that expert witnesses rely heavily on hypothetical questions. As (Bronstein, 2009) explains, it wises using the scientific and technical principles or any other forms that are non-opinionated. However, this is not to say that opinion has been abolished, but this is an additional avenue for the experts to engage in a further inference in the application of the learned treaties.
As far as testimony is concerned, the basic point is to help the one on the trial to understand the argument. In other words, the whole process is to ensure that all the parties in disputes are understood. In this case, credence is given a priority as far as skilled professionalism is concerned. As indicated earlier, common law disregarded opinionated notions without valid conclusions. This was because jurors were capable of doing anything. For instance, they would make personal inferences regarding the submitted evidence (Smith 2011).
In summary, it resulted in seeking additional skills to facilitate the factuality of the information. The knowledge was required from a learned person and therefore, after the end of the 18th century, the court had an option but to adopt testimony from skilled persons. There are different types of skilled persons which the writer of this paper will attempt to explain to the reader as this discussion proceeds from one phase to another.
In the current era, there is a surge in the use of testimonial experts as no case can be executed without the involvement of witnesses that are experts in a particular field. Every case, for instance, criminal or civil among others has been sorted to include witnesses. With this development, legal fields have a ligation to ensure that the right breeds of experts are brought on board (Rothstein et al., 2003).
Ensuring that the right expert is brought on board has resulted in a question like who is the best expert and what opinion can he or she have to help the fact finder. Trials are influenced by different factors for instance; opinions and factual information can trigger different decisions especially to the fact finder. In both cases, they can be a hindrance or a breakthrough (Rothstein et al., 2003).
In this paper, the writer will address all aspects as far as an expert witness is concerned. In addition, the applicability of the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or FRE 702 is fundamental in this discussion. The FRE 702 defines an expert in terms of qualifications. In addition, the FRE has defined an expert because leads to the admissibility of facts that will further lead to the sufficiency of reliable information in making final decisions.
In the admissibility of standards, an expert witness is defined as a person who is given the mandate to engage in a trial by offering an opinion based on specialized knowledge, training, or even experience among other requirements. In this case, the witness is reliable in the sense that his or her opinion will help the trial to tackle relevant issues in the trial and more importantly, to help in reaching sound decisions. It has been contended that an expert witness is not necessarily needed to be aware of the content of the ongoing case (Saltzburg et al., [FRE 702 manual], 2006).
From this end, the paper will embark on addressing different segments in FRE 702 rule. This way, the reader will be put in a position to understand the credentials needed as an expert witness. The writer will begin by addressing the areas of concern of expert witnesses as required by the FRE rule.
Area of Concern of Expert Witnesses
The area of concern as far as an expert witness is concerned is very wide as it focuses on the knowledge that is beyond the understanding of the jurors and the ordinary persons present in the court sessions. These include high-tech sciences disciplines and any other field of experience for instance information technology. However, with this respect, the expert witness is not supposed by any chance to attack the fact finder or in other words, the witness should not take the place of an advocate when addressing the court. This is where opinion comes into play. As such, it should be used carefully not to invade the province of the jurors. If need be, the expert may instead use the approach of asking questions that regard the law of facts (Saltzburg et al., [FRE manual], 2006).
Having discussed the areas entailed in the expert witness, the writer will engage the reader in outlining the guidelines of the FRE 702 rule. The 702 rule has been amended in 2000 but this segment will be discussed later in this paper. At this point, the writer will proceed to explain the guidelines and requirements needed for an expert to qualify to testify as one area of concern.
FRE 702: Testimony by Experts
The FRE has enacted guidelines that ensure that an expert participating in testimonial evidence is based on scientific, technical or any other form of specialization is fundamental in assisting the trial process in understanding the evidential matter at hand or in other words, the base has the magnitude to determine the nature of facts in an issue during the trial. By meeting this obligation, an expert is, therefore, regarded as a witness. In this context, the expert is deemed to possess the knowledge, skills, experience training, or any other traits to make the case admissible. see the Folker v. Chadd, 104 Mich. 1387, 1380 (2006) where the expert was expected to differentiate between the evolution of evidence as science has attempted to provide facts that are different from the previous one.
According to the FRE rule manual (2006), the expert witness needs to be equipped with three distinct characters, for instance, the testimonial evidence has to exhibit enough facts as well as data to easily execute the trial process. Secondly, the 702 rule demands that the testimony exhibit reliability in terms of principles and the methods used. Finally, the witness has to have the skills to apply the principles and methods for the sake of the reliability of the case at hand.
Basic Requirement of the FRE 702
The FRE 702 has enacted requirements that ensure the admissibility of expert witness testimony. These requirements include qualifications, reliability, helpfulness, and foundation. According to these requirements, a witness must exhibit qualifications in the area of specialization for example in education, or be practically experienced in the area where he or she is going to testify (Bronstein, 2009).
On reliability, the FRE rule requires that the opinion is given be by the given field. The fact-finder must see some sense during the presentation of the testimony. In this context, the information provided must be helpful to the ordinary persons present at the court. Finally, the foundation as a requirement of the FRE rule upholds that the experts must offer data or any other valuable information that is agreeable by other experts from different disciplines (Bronstein, 2009).
The paper will now focus on discussing the requirements mentioned above in deeper detail. This is to ensure that the reader understands fully the components of the FRE requirements.
As the writer of this paper had indicated earlier in this discussion, testimony should work to help a trial process arrive at a conclusive decision after a court session. A case in point is that of Daubert v. Merell, 509 U.S. 579-592 (1993). In this case, the helpful aspect was used to ensure that admissibility prevailed. For instance, a scientific principle was used to connect with what was being inquired. In this case, it is based on scientific phenomena used in the chemical process to clear doubts on the inquiry.
With this in mind, the FRE rule realized that a fact finder may not gain much from the helpful requirement due to the following shortcomings. First, the opinion that is being argued may not be commensurate with the real facts that are before the court. As such, it will not support the helpful requirement of the FRE 702. Secondly, there is the issue of the analytical gap. In this context, the opinion is faced with a deficiency of factual information to offer a strong foundation to uphold the reasoning. As real as it may be, it denies the fact-finder an opportunity to deliver on the court decision hence not helpful (Saltzburg et al, [FRE manual], 2006).
In the last scenario of helpfulness, it has proven not to help due to its argument of the obviousness nature. In this case, the expert witness results in stating what is obvious without proof. With all these, it has to lead to helpfulness requirement a problem to the fact finder. Having discussed all these the reader has fully understood what entails in the requirement of helpfulness as far as FRE rule is concerned. The writer will now engage in deeper details on another FRE requirement.
The writer had noted earlier that as far as qualifications are concerned; an expert witness is entitled to specialized knowledge that ranges from training to specific areas of experience. The reader will note that qualification is a wide area and a fundamental aspect in the expert witness and as a rule employed by FRE 702. This qualification must go beyond the understanding of the fact-finder hence making this requirement important in the admissibility of facts (Dywer, 2008).
Scholars have contended that experts do not necessarily need to be experts in a given discipline but be in a position to provide satisfaction to reality. However, depending on the nature of the matter, some credentials may be rejected due to its inability to provide enough factual information to the fact finder for instance in DiBella v. Hopkins, 403 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2005) the state of mind affected the credibility of information.
Scholars have also contended that experience may be used to provide facts by the expert witnesses to the fact finder. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999) is a case in point. In this case, the experienced person was used as a perfume tester.
However, the FRE 702 that was amended in 2000 takes care of such expert witnesses. In such a case, it refutes the idea of a witness to entirely base its citation on the experienced background. Instead, the witness must provide sufficient information on how they arrived at the conclusions.
Reliability and Foundation Requirement of the FRE 702
In this context, the FRE 702 requires that the witness is equipped with information that will support facts. The opinion must be reasonable and abide by ensuring that facts fall in their rightful place for the sake of evidence needed. Maybe to deviate a bit from the 702 rule, the FRE 703 opines on the same grounds that the kind of data and facts provided must be reasonable and agreeable by other experts in another field. For instance, an accident caused by an automobile will be difficult to reach at a conclusion by relying entirely on bystanders’ contributions. In Chanex rel. Estate of Brewer v. Coggins, No. 3:05-CV-254 HTW-LRA, 2007 WL 2783355, at 2–4 (S.D. Miss. 2007) the Reconstructionist ignored several issues from the driver but used bystander testimony leading to distortion of information.
The Amendment of the FRE 702 in 2000 and its Effects
An amendment was done on the 702 rule particularly on the first section which opted that testimonies be sufficient as far as data and facts are concerned. The rule that existed between 702 and 703 exhibited no difference. After the amendment, it was agreed that the framework in which the reliability is tested, should be within the rule of 702. In addition, the reliability encompassed facts and data that were sufficient enough to lead to the fact finder (Saltzburg et al., [FRE manual], 2006).
Also to note, the amendment was done due to challenges that faced not only Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) case but also those that applied Daubert scenario like Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999). In the case concerning Daubert, the trial judges were used to make sure that no expert witness would testify misleading information. The trial judges referred to as gatekeepers made sure that the evidence provided exhibited the reliability requirement needed.
In the case that concerned Kumho, the gatekeepers were also used to ensure that all experts provided reliable data. This did not base on the science expert alone but the entire expert witness. The FRE 702 was released for public scrutiny a day before Kumho made its final decision. In the amendment, the rule allowed the use of gatekeepers to ensure that reliability requirements is upheld. As such, the trial court was to assess all avenues to ensure that standards that uphold the reliability and helpfulness of the expert are adhered to.
In the amendment, it was agreed that all types of experts provide questions of admissibility that can be used to assess the reliability and helpfulness of the evidence submitted. Under these guidelines, the expert testimonies were governed by FRE 104 rule. In this rule, the evidence submitted by the expert must meet admissibility thresholds by a preponderance of the information given for example the use of the admissibility threshold that was used in the case Bourjaily v. the United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987).
The Effects of the Amendments of the FRE Rule and its Procedure
The amendment has resulted in some pertinent issues regarding the expert witness. As Cheng puts it in his book, Scientific Evidence Past and Present (2006), opines that scientific testimonies cannot be the same as those that were used a long time ago since science has been proved through experimentation. Therefore, scientific testimonies have become one of the areas that needed thorough scrutiny in assessing the admissibility of the opinion that was provided by the experts
A checklist is used to validate the reliability of the scientific testimony. For instance, in case an expert used various techniques before the court, the court must ensure whether the techniques have been tested before. If the technique or the principle has not been tested before, the court will take the responsibility of ensuring that the technique is tested. This is to ensure the reliability of the evidence and the helpful nature of the FRE 702 requirement is achieved (Saltzburg et al., [FRE manual], 2006).
Another effect that was realized after the amendment of the FRE 702 rule is the peer review of the theory used by the expert witness. In this context, it requires that any technique used by the expert must have been under peer review or publicized to make it as a point of reference during the testimonial process (Saltzburg e al., [FRE manual], 2006).
There are errors expected when experts are giving their testimonies, especially for the scientific and methodological principles. As such, the amendment ensured that such potential errors are said in advance to avert any doubts during court proceedings. It also ensured that any technique used is acceptable by the scientific community before using it as the basis of reliability.
However, the mentioned effects have drawn sharp critics from different individuals who have handled different cases. For instance, it has been argued that the effort to codify the factors of ensuring the scientific principles are by the rules of the scientific community has not been successful. It has also been noted that some expert witnesses cannot be assessed under given specific characters. In the case where a sociologist specialist is used, it is difficult to employ the factor of testing the scientific principles. A reference can be drawn from Tyus v. Urban Search Management, 102 f. 3d 256 (17th Cor. 1996) where the management could not relate social problems to scientific principles.
There are cases where peer review has hindered the admissibility of a given case. Some scientific findings have not been documented leading to an unclear decision from the court. A fact can be argued on a widely accepted scientific knowledge but since factors are not credible in some circumstances, it has challenged the credibility of the case (Dwyer, 2008).
The author of this paper has explained the amendment of the FRE rule and the reason that triggered the amendment has been explained to the reader. It has been noted that “sufficiency” is a term that is frequently used in the FRE rule. The author of this paper is, therefore, going to elaborate further on what is entailed as far as sufficient is concerned.
The Aspect of Sufficient of Facts and Data
As far as the FRE rule is concerned, a specific quantum of evidence has not been arrived at in determining the admissibility of a given case. The reason behind this is that analysis relies on a given discipline with a specific issue. In different circumstances, for example in the use of experience, a given witness needs to review the scenarios in the case given for instance, in Bert Black & David E. Lilienfeld, Epidemiologic Proof in Toxic Tort Litigation, 52 Fordham L. Rev. 732 (1984). The field mentioned above needs some specific requirements to ensure reliability support before giving a conclusion.
Sufficient information as a requirement is indeed fully admissible. On the contrary, the scenarios may be challenging where different witness experts conclude each with a different opinion. However, in such a predicament, the FRE 702 amendment saw it that, the fact finder must be keen on observing experts who dwell so much on baseless facts. In such a scenario, the opinion is rejected immediately (Rice et al., 2000).
Factors Considered for Sufficiency of Data and Facts
Several factors have evolved after several cases have been administered throughout history. For instance, experts have been noted to testify on issues they have personally tested from their research. In some cases, the experts have developed arguments that are purposefully meant for the case. These kinds of testimonies have been allowed in the court so long as they are by the FRE rule or reliability (Saltzburg et al., [FRE manual], 2006).
The experts are considered to behave the same as they perform in their normal field of operations with that of the court. If an expert deviates from normally accepted norms, the court may decide to reject the expert’s contribution. See a reference point of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999). The experts are supposed to behave the same irrespective of the change of environment or the effort to exercise cautiousness by ensuring the angle of presentation is not tilted to favor a change of environment.
The ability of an expert to use an alternative and obvious is an added advantage during the court execution process. If such factors are omitted, it means the expert is likely to evade an admissibility question that requires an alternative explanation, Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999). Some question of weight has to be explained by the obvious facts which the expert needs to account for during citation. Kumho’s scenario exhibited the same when the experts were required to account for simple scientific methods of testing chemicals.
The general acceptance of factors has also been a point of argument in a given a case. For example, if an expert concluded with adequate explanations it does not guarantee that the testimony was reliable. Some fields in particular disciplines are not reliable. For example, the field of necromancy does not offer any base or reliability. For instance, the case of Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc.,151 F.3d 269 (5th Cor. 1998) where the clinical doctor provided unreliable information concerning the patient respiratory illness. His argument of the toxicological cause of respiratory diseases was not accurate.
These factors are fundamental in the FRE 702 rule since they help to determine the reliability of the case. They help to reach the threshold of sufficiency a major fundamental requirement in the 702 rule. The segments in each expert’s testimony must give a leeway for the fact finders to determine reliability and sufficiency. Dispositive is a term used t refer to the indulgence of the expert testimony to lead not only to reliability but also to a positive result after evaluation of the practicals demonstrated by the witnesses.
The Principle of Reliability and Methods
In the case that involves provision of evidence, reliability depends on grounds that can be supported. In this case, the methods and principles depend on the facts of science. For example Daubert embarked on ensuring that the opinion that was given was carefully evaluated so that each party understood what was taking place. Science demands that facts are proven using scientific methods. As such, the evidence that used was evaluated with different discipline but factors resulted to different variation of results.
As the author of this paper had discussed earlier, the expert witness is supposed to provide sufficient information regarding the case. However, it has been noted in many cases that experts cites sufficient evidence that is reliable by applying all principles and methods and reach to conclusions that are not viable. In this scenario, some expert failed to show the court how the conclusion was arrived at using the method and procedures needed to lead to a conclusion.
The principles applied may be right, but the opinion based on the findings misused the methodology. For instance, the Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) argued that there is a difference between conclusions and methodology applied. They contended that there was analytical gap that was eminent from the experts opinion and information hence the court rejected the testimony.
Guidelines for the FRE 702 Amendments
The FRE rule amendment states that sufficiency achievement of expert testimony does not entail that the expert citations are adequate. Some principles from the same field are competing and the FRE rule was amended to ensure that such encounters are well taken care of during a court proceedings. For instance, when one experiment is used instead of another, this does not mean that the expert lack sufficiency and credibility (Saltzburg et al., [FRE manual), 2006).
In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999), they argue that the experiments that were conducted by a particular specialist in one area may have also been conducted by some junior in elsewhere in the same field. In such a scenario, the process cannot be excluded on the grounds that either way can assure the jurors the sufficiency required.
It has been difficult for the jurors and the experts to determine which of the two principles employed the correct provenance. The amendment has tackled this problem by ensuring that the juror’s duty is to observe the principles and the methodology employed and not the conclusions made. It has been argued that, conclusions and methodology are not different form one other (Keynolds and Kings, 2012).
A case in point is for example that one of Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 89 F. 3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996), where each principle arrived at different conclusions from different experts. Or in other words, a conclusion which the other expert cannot arrive is deemed to have been wrongly applied. The amendment of the FRE 702 has tackled the issue by ensuring that the court has the duty to scrutinize scientific methods used and in addition, the specialized expert must have the knowledge to employ the principles correctly. If the principle is wrongly administered, it will affect the admissibility process. As such, a reliable methodology may be completely misused even though it was a reliable method.
The amendments have shortlisted that expert may resolve to apply the methodology and principles on the information regarding the case. As such, the amendment advice the court that they can do so in accordance with the reliability required by FRE rule. In some instances, the expert witnesses can also resolve to explain to the fact finders the general principle that entails in their specialization. This does not necessarily require the expert to demonstrate the process to distinct facts of the case. For example, an expert can explain to the court the blood clotting process without merging the process to the facts submitted in court.
From the amendment of FRE rule in 2000, four characteristics are required for a given expert witness;
- The expert should have the qualification that guarantee successfully handling of the case
- The testimony of the expert should enable the court to relate the facts with the information given
- The expert should be submit information that exhibit reliability
- The testimony should commensurate with the facts before the court
Initially, there was a distinction between scientific testimony and other technical testimony. The amendment of FRE rule has revoked the distinction giving same opportunity to all forms of expert testimonies. These include other testimonies from non-scientific disciplines. From this direction, the gate keeping process includes scrutiny applied to all experts in the court for instance like that of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999).
It is a fact that different testimonies varies from one discipline to another. The variation has been a point of argument across all the legal scholars. The amendment has come forth to state that permissively of experts from science realm should be handled the same from other non-scientific discipline. In this context, the amendment regard all opinion the same irrespective the field from which they are argued.
Different witness experts have exhibited different verification process. For instance, Watkins v. Telsmith, Inc., 121 F.3d 984, 991 (5th Cir. 1997) case, the principles of engineering techniques escaped scrutiny by simply stating that the methods and principles resulted to the conclusions. It has also been argued that, some experts’ opinion be subjected to verification due to their nature of objectivity as opposed to others which are subjective in nature.
The amendment has ensured that testimony is produced from reliable principles and methods as well. In addition, they should be sufficiently fit in the facts tabled before the court. It has been suggested since terminologies used in the field of science depict a different impression by those using them; the relevancy should remain the same across all types of experts. For example, a case involving the testimony of codes used by drug trafficking barons to conceal their work has to be explained by giving examples on how the codes has been used in the conversations (Saltzburg et al., [FRE manual], 2006.
Experience is another consideration that the FRE 702 amendment brought on board. Although the requirement was used before, it was not clear how to employ experienced expert witness. FRE rule has contended that an expert may be qualified to testify based on the experienced he/she have to sufficiently offer opinion based on the facts submitted before the court. Some fields do not require expertise but experienced personnel hence experience expert can be given a mandate to provide opinion in court. For example in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999), argues that no single expert can fail to come out with conclusions from observation prepared by specialized experienced person.
However, in a situation where an expert uses experience as a mode of testifying, a thorough analysis is done on how conclusion was reached. The gate keeping process handles such expert on the basis that explains opinions that are sufficient and coherent with the facts on the table. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1995), there is a scenario where an argument rose on the basis that the qualification of the expert have been achieved but the conclusions are missing.
Another important guideline that safeguards the FRE 702 process is the quantitative of data and facts. In this regard, the amendment has preferred the later over qualitative due to the fact that sufficiency is ensured to meet the facts and data on the table. Data has been used often in FRE rule to imply that whatever data is given to the fact finder, it should also commensurate with other experts from other fields. Hence, hypothetical facts are avoided by all means during the court execution process unless otherwise (Saltzburg et al., [FRE manual], 2006).
Sometimes testimonies might be in dispute due to the fact that facts are competing leading to confusion. With this in mind, the court does not resolve to denounce one particular expert due to competing facts. In such a scenario, sufficiency in the amendment was employed to cater for such aspect. This aspect has often been confused with FRE rule 703, but after amendment, the sufficiency falls under the FRE rule 702 (Saltzburg et al [FRE manual], 2006).
Discussions and Conclusion
The author of this paper has exhaustively tackled the FRE rule of expert witness. The requirements needed have been extensively explained to the reader. It is therefore clear that expert witnesses are important rule in legal field. The legal field is based on evidence that is valid hence the use witness in approving the facts is mandatory in the study of legal matters.
The check list in appointing an expert to present particular party in a trial should be substantial. The writer has indicated all characteristics needed for a given expert to be used as a witness. For legal field to remain relevant in the current society, it has to exploit on the use of witness in any given case. As such, federal rule of evidence complies with the needs of making the lawsuit to meet its obligation equality and fairness it upholds.
Davie v. Magistrates of Edinburgh, 102 S.C. 34 (1953) where FRE rule was realized to make it easy for court execution and the use of witnesses.
The case concerning Folkes v. Chadd is based on the events that have evolved from one form to another. See the reference in the book review by Edward K. Cheng, Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past and Present, 104 Mich. L. Rev. 1387, 1388 (2006).
See also a reference of Highland Capital Mgmt., LP v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (the attorney’s explanations that regarded the state of minds fair fall of other parties was rejected)
DiBella v. Hopkins, 403 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2005) (disregarding conclusion from the plaintiff terming it as extortion).
Saltzburg, MichaelM. Martin, & DanielJ. Capra, Federal Rules of Evidence Manual § 702.02 at 702–08 (Saltzburg Bender ed. 2006) (the notion that red is liquid coming out of human body is not recognizable under the FRE rule).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)chemicals that were used need scientific principles and methods for understanding of the all parties and the court.
Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999) the scientific principles in the use of chemicals and explanations to the court.
Chan ex rel. Estate of Brewer v. Coggins, No. 3:05-CV-254 HTW-LRA, 2007 WL 2783355, at 2–4 (S.D. Miss. 2007) the accident by the industrial machines. Who is the best witness; the bystanders or the driver.
Tyus v. Urban Search Management, 102 f. 3d 256 (17th Cir. 1996) different fields have different principles and other do have a scientific founding for example in sociology aspects like astrology.
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (argued that there was a difference between a conclusions and the principles applied).
Bert Black & David E. Lilienfeld, Epidemiologic Proof in Toxic Tort Litigation, 52 Fordham L. Rev. 732 (1984).
Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc.,151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) the use of fact by experts to change methods and principles for the sake of the court. The doctor used false explanations on the illness that affect the respiratory system.
Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 89 F. 3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996) they used different scientific principles but arrived at the same conclusions.
Bronstein, D. (2009). Law for the expert witness. New York: CRC Press.
Dwyer, D. (2008). The judicial assessment of expert evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reynolds, M., & King, P. (2012). The expert witness and his evidence. London: Blackwell.
Rice, C., Paulo, R., Delker, N. (2000). Federal rules of evidence advisory committee: a short history of too little consequence federal rules decisions. New York: Thimble.
Rothstein, D., Paul , S., Raeder, R., Myrna, S., & Crump, D. (2003). Evidence in a nutshell. London:Thomson/West.
Scott, J. (2010). Evidence Illustrated: cases to Illustrate how all the rules work. Holmes Beach: Sage Publishers.
Smith, D. (2011). Being an effective expert witness. London:Thames Publishing.