'Gatekeeping' Expands in Two Jurisdictions

Twenty years ago, federal courts came under new rules for admissibility of expert scientific testimony from the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The decision made clear that the 70-year-old test of admissibility of experts' opinions relying on “new scientific techniques,” as set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923), no longer controlled in federal courts. Instead, the Daubert court instructed judges to conduct wide-ranging analyses of not just new scientific techniques, but any testimony of scientific, medical and technical knowledge proffered to assist the jury. Judges were to examine not only the scientific principles relied on, but also the validity of the experts' reasoning and derived opinions. Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, judges are to be gatekeepers at the outset of trial to ensure reliable scientific knowledge will be applied. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-593.