Since 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that expert testimony in federal court needs to be reliable. But the Supreme Court of Florida has stuck with an older standard that focuses on whether the expert’s opinions are generally accepted. Even though Florida still uses the older standard, reliability is still really important for all expert testimony. This older standard was the main one for a long time, until the U.S. Supreme Court changed it in 1993 in a case called Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Court said that expert scientific evidence needs to be reliable and have a valid scientific connection to the case. The Court also said that trial judges need to be careful about what expert testimony they allow in court, and only let in evidence that is reliable and relevant. Florida has been using the Frye standard since 1953 to determine if scientific evidence is reliable enough to be admitted in court. Even after adopting an evidence code, Florida continued to use the Frye standard for new and novel science. The Florida Supreme Court confirmed the use of the Frye standard for expert testimony in 1989 and again in 1993, stating that the evidence must be generally accepted by the scientific community to be admissible in court. The Florida Supreme Court has made decisions to uphold and clarify the Frye test, which determines if expert scientific testimony is reliable. They said that the test is only needed when someone challenges the reliability of the evidence. This means that Florida’s trial courts don’t have to decide on their own if the evidence is reliable. Ramirez v. State explained that when deciding whether to admit new scientific evidence, the court has to consider if it will help the jury understand the case and if the expert’s opinion is based on widely accepted scientific principles. The court also ruled that the person presenting the evidence has to prove that it’s generally accepted in the scientific community. In Brim v. State, the court clarified that the majority of the relevant scientific community has to support the principles or techniques of the evidence. The decision on whether the evidence is admissible or not is reviewed by a higher court. Appellate courts also consider the current acceptance of the evidence, not just when it was first presented in court. Under Florida law, the Frye standard does not apply to all expert testimony. It doesn’t apply to “pure opinion testimony” based on a person’s experience and training, or to nonscientific methodology or reasoning. Additionally, Frye doesn’t apply to scientific testimony that is not new or novel. However, the reliability of expert testimony can still be challenged under Florida law, even without the Frye standard. When a new and innovative scientific testimony is presented in court, the judge needs to make sure it is reliable and based on accepted scientific principles. Even though Frye only looks at the general acceptance of the scientific method, the court still needs to understand the science behind the expert’s opinion and make sure it is widely accepted by the scientific community. For example, in Brim v. State, the court had to evaluate the admissibility of DNA comparison tests in two distinct steps: the biological process of examining a DNA sample and the statistical methodology used. Both of these steps needed to be based on widely accepted scientific principles before the opinion evidence could be admitted. In a recent court case, the judges used the Frye standard to determine if scientific evidence presented by experts was reliable. The experts claimed that a certain type of food poisoning caused a particular neurological disorder in a person, but the court found that their scientific support was not strong enough. The Frye standard requires that each scientific principle or discovery underlying an expert’s opinion be accepted by a clear majority of scientists in the relevant field. If the evidence doesn’t meet this standard, it can be deemed inadmissible in court. Even when the Frye standard doesn’t apply, parties can still challenge the reliability of expert testimony in other ways. In the series of decisions leading up to Stokes, courts have been analyzing the reliability of expert testimony. Even though Frye’s standard doesn’t apply in some cases, reliability is still important for expert testimony. Florida law requires that all expert testimony be reliable, and there are specific rules in place to ensure this. The court must examine the opinion testimony to make sure that the underlying science is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. If an expert’s opinion is deemed unreliable, it may not be admissible as evidence. These are citations and references to legal cases and tests about the admissibility of expert testimony in court. Itâs about whether scientific evidence is accepted in court and how itâs evaluated. The cases mentioned show different court decisions and interpretations of the rules for allowing expert testimony. This is a list of court cases and legal principles related to expert testimony in Florida. It includes cases where expert testimony was based on scientific principles, and the requirements for such testimony to be considered admissible in court. It also discusses the burden of proof on the proponent of the expert testimony, and the need for the expert’s opinion to be more than just a guess. The burden of proof is on the party opposing admission of evidence to show that the underlying facts are not sufficient. If the shortcomings in the facts aren’t obvious, they will likely be considered as affecting the weight of the evidence, rather than its admissibility. This information is provided by the Trial Lawyers Section, with Thomas P. Scarritt, Jr. as chair and Thomas P. Barber as editor, to promote duty and service to the public, improve the administration of justice, and advance the science of jurisprudence.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/challenging-the-reliability-of-expert-testimony/
Leave a Reply