Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993)
Question: What is the standard for admissibility of expert testimony?
Holding: 1. Whether the expert’s technique or theory can be or has been tested; 2. Whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; 3. The known or potential error rate of the technique or theory when applied; 4. The existence and maintenance of standards and controls; 5. Whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community
Frye v. US (1923)
Question: What is the standard for admissibility of expert testimony?
Holding: Courts should not admit testimony regarding methods that have not gained sufficient scientific recognition, on the grounds that such techniques or procedures have not yet been validated through discovery, development, and experimentation. That is, the methodology must have general acceptance in the field.
General Electric v. Joiner (1997)
Question: When appellate courts review lower courts’ decisions to admit or exclude expert testimony, what standard of review should be applied?
Holding: The traditional abuse of discretion standard that governs reviews of evidentiary rulings extends to the admissibility of expert testimony. A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it concludes the data presented by the expert do not support the expert’s opinion.
Kumho Tire v. Carmichael (1999)
Question: Does the Daubert standard apply to other expert testimony?
Holding: The Daubert standard applies to the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists. The U.S. Supreme Court considered that Federal Rule 702 makes no relevant distinction between “scientific” knowledge and “technical” or “other specialized” knowledge. However, it does make clear that anyknowledge of this type might become subject to expert testimony.
Ohio Rules of Evidence:
Rules of Evidence (ohio.gov); see Rule 702