Daubert

Daubert refers to the standard governing the admissibility of expert testimony in U.S. federal courts, derived from the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The decision interpreted Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and replaced the older Frye standard, imposing a gatekeeping role on judges to assess the reliability and relevance of scientific evidence.

Under Daubert, trial judges must ensure that expert testimony is based on reliable methods and will assist the trier of fact, rather than on speculation or opinion that lacks scientific validity.

The Daubert framework identifies several factors for assessing reliability, though they are nonexclusive: testability or falsifiability; peer review and publication; known or potential error rate; existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique; and general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. Courts may weigh these factors differently, and apply other considerations as appropriate.

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) extended Daubert's gatekeeping to all expert testimony, including non-scientific fields. General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997) held that appellate review of a trial court's Daubert ruling is limited to abuse of discretion. The Daubert standard has influenced federal practice and, in various forms, many state court evidentiary regimes.