{"id":87401,"date":"2019-02-21T15:46:57","date_gmt":"2019-02-21T20:46:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?p=87401"},"modified":"2019-11-05T14:30:53","modified_gmt":"2019-11-05T19:30:53","slug":"expert-testimony","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/trial\/expert-testimony","title":{"rendered":"The Daubert Standard and Admitting Expert Testimony"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t
Scientific evidence can be very persuasive to a jury and has the potential to seriously sway the outcome of a trial. This is why the Supreme Court put standards in place for how a district court must evaluate whether expert testimony and scientific evidence can be admitted at trial. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether the DNA evidence presented through expert testimony in the case of United States v. Barton<\/em><\/a> was sufficiently reliable to be admissible under the Daubert<\/em> standard.<\/p>\n In the Supreme Court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.<\/em><\/a>, it was established that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that the district court act as a “gatekeeper” in determining whether scientific evidence is admissible at trial. The reason that the court must serve in this role is that scientific evidence presents complex issues that are difficult for the layperson on a jury to understand. Allowing junk science to be admitted at trial<\/a> and influence jurors could unjustly lead to a wrongful conviction.<\/p>\n Therefore, the court must vet the expert opinions to ensure that the evidence presented through the expert witness is reliable and relevant to the matter at hand. The district court must also find that the expert witness is sufficiently qualified to opine on the matter for which they seek to testify. To determine whether scientific evidence is reliable, the district court must examine the testing and methodology employed by the expert to reach his conclusion.<\/p>\nAdmitting Expert Testimony Under the Daubert<\/em> Standard<\/h2>\n
Expert Testimony Must be Reliable and Relevant to the Matter at Hand<\/h2>\n
Background on United States v. Barton<\/em> and Issues Regarding the Daubert<\/em> Standard<\/h2>\n