Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Court
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Decided
- Citation
- 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
What did the court decide?
In a civil case claiming a prescription drug caused birth defects, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye's "general acceptance" test, govern expert scientific testimony in federal trials. The trial judge must act as a gatekeeper and make sure the testimony rests on a reliable foundation and fits the issues in the case. Factors the judge may consider include whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested, peer review and publication, the known or potential error rate and standards controlling the technique, and general acceptance. The inquiry is flexible and focuses on methods, not conclusions.
Why does it matter?
Daubert is the foundation of modern expert-witness law in federal courts and in states that follow it. The Court also said cross-examination, contrary evidence, and careful instructions are the usual ways to attack shaky but admissible evidence. Arizona amended its Rule 702 to follow Daubert effective January 1, 2012 (State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590 (2014)).
Where can I read the full opinion?
Read the full opinion on Cornell Law School LII →
Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.