ABSTRACT
Alaska: Daubert. “Capricious” Frye Standard Rejected 46 Arkansas: Daubert and Novel Evidence 46 Colorado: Rule Based: More Liberal Admissibility Standard to Be Tempered by Prejudice Analysis 47 Connecticut: Gatekeeper. Four-Point Test Does Not Apply to All Science 47 Delaware: Daubert, but Still Some Frye 48 Kentucky: Reliable Science vs. Unfair Prejudice 48 Louisiana: Daubert: Reliable Science vs. Unfair Prejudice-Where Diagnosis Is a Statement of Causation 48 Michigan: Daubert 49 Montana: Daubert Plus Cross-Examination 49 Nebraska: Daubert. Toxic Torts and Traps for the Unwary Expert 50 New Mexico: Daubert. Preserving the Line between Expert Witness Testimony and Lay Witness Credibility 51 North Carolina: Daubert Plus Established Science 52 Oklahoma: Daubert. Toxic Torts-General vs. Specific Causation 53 Oregon: Daubert 53 Rhode Island: Daubert 53 South Dakota: Daubert 53 Texas: Daubert-A Necessary Rule in a Complex World 54 Vermont: Daubert 54 Wyoming: Daubert 54 West Virginia: Daubert Plus Judicial Notice of Established Science 55 Mississippi: Daubert 55 New Hampshire: Daubert 55
States Where Daubert Is Viewed as Instructive 56 Hawaii: Daubert Instructive 56
Indiana: Daubert Instructive 56 Iowa: Daubert Instructive 56 Massachusetts: Daubert Instructive 57 Tennessee: Daubert Instructive 58 Ohio: Daubert Instructive 58 Maine: Daubert Instructive 59
Frye and Modified-Frye States 59 Alabama: Frye 59 District of Columbia: Frye 59 Florida: Frye 60 Illinois: Frye 60 Kansas: Frye 61 Maryland: Frye 61 Pennsylvania: Frye 62 Minnesota: Frye Plus Reliability 62 New Jersey: Frye 64 New York: Frye 64 Washington: Frye 64 Idaho: Gatekeeper State 66 Nevada: Gatekeeper State 66 Wisconsin: A Limited-Gatekeeper State 66
Rules-Based-Plus-Reliability States 67 Arizona: Rule 702 67 Missouri: Akin to Rule 702 67 North Dakota: Rule 702 Plus Reliability 68 Utah: Rule 702 Plus Reliability 68 South Carolina: Rule 702 Plus Reliability 68 Georgia: In a Class of Its Own 69 California: Frye Plus Reliability 69 Virginia: Reliability (Neither Daubert nor Frye) 71
Judging the Reliability of Medical Literature Using the Three Rs, or the Reasonable Reliance Requirement, of Rule 703 73
Rule 703: Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts 73 A Jury of Our Peers? 74 Madness in the Methods 75 A Few Basics 75 Getting Started 76 Mismatch between Design and Purpose 77 Case Series Studies 77 Selection Bias 78 Insufficient Data 78 Statistics: Sometimes a Tool for Those with No Proof ? 79 Data-Pooling to Conjure Up the “Statistics Boogeyman” 79 Case Control Studies 80 Cross-Sectional Survey Studies 80 Cohort Studies 80
The most brilliant and lucid expert witness is worth little in the courtroom unless he or she passes muster with the judge (the “gatekeeper”) and is able to have his or her evidence and opinions admitted into evidence for the jury.
