Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
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
- 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
What did the court decide?
In a civil tire-failure case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the trial judge's Daubert gatekeeping duty applies to all expert testimony, including testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge and on experience, not just scientific testimony. The judge may use the Daubert factors when they help measure reliability, but they are not a required checklist, and the judge has broad latitude in deciding how to test reliability. The Court upheld the exclusion of a tire expert whose method, as applied to this tire, was not shown to be reliable.
Why does it matter?
This is why experience-based experts, including police-practices experts, are subject to the same reliability screening as scientists. The goal is that an expert uses "the same level of intellectual rigor" in court as in the expert's field. Federal appeals cases such as United States v. Hankey and United States v. Valencia-Lopez apply it to law enforcement experts.
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.
Related rulings
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- United States v. Hankey
- United States v. Valencia-Lopez
- State v. Schoenhardt