tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5077774759289052226.post3726411209117819701..comments2024-03-18T14:09:39.985-05:00Comments on Bench and Bar Experiences: The Daubert "Expert Testimony" Rule: Coming to WisconsinJohn DiMottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15521940768659333581noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5077774759289052226.post-7604608421989432212011-02-01T12:14:27.104-06:002011-02-01T12:14:27.104-06:00See
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule70...See<br /><br />http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule702.htm<br /><br />...<br /><br />A review of the caselaw after Daubert shows that the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule. Daubert did not work a ''seachange over federal evidence law,'' and ''the trial court's role as gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system.'' United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land Situated in Leflore County, Mississippi, 80 F.3d 1074, 1078 (5th Cir. 1996). As the Court in Daubert stated: ''Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.'' 509 U.S. at 595. Likewise, this amendment is not intended to provide an excuse for an automatic challenge to the testimony of every expert. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999) (noting that the trial judge has the discretion ''both to avoid unnecessary 'reliability' proceedings in ordinary cases where the reliability of an expert's methods is properly taken for granted, and to require appropriate proceedings in the less usual or more complex cases where cause for questioning the expert's reliability arises.'').Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5077774759289052226.post-6026768226812888282011-02-01T05:32:28.823-06:002011-02-01T05:32:28.823-06:00Not all expert testimony is "scientific"...Not all expert testimony is "scientific" and subject to the Daubert factors. Training, experience, culture and norms can provide expertise. The proponent of the evidence must provide the Court with the "Big Picture" about the subject matter and the witness. Remember, Daubert is not meant keep expert testimony out of the record but to provide a reliability baseline.John DiMottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15521940768659333581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5077774759289052226.post-42989904341958331942011-01-28T14:58:16.637-06:002011-01-28T14:58:16.637-06:00How would you assess the reliability of a qualifie...How would you assess the reliability of a qualified expert witness pursuant to ICWA/WICWA? There testimony is based on culture and norms that are not tested and reviewed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com