ABSTRACT
Under the landmark Frye decision, courts were constrained to admit scientific evidence only as long as it is was generally accepted by the scientific community. Under Daubert, federal courts were given far greater flexibility in determining the admissibility of expert scientific testimony. According to the Court in Daubert, “scientific” focuses on the methods and procedures of science, while “knowledge” focuses on objective beliefs or supported evidence. Daubert suggested some additional considerations for determining the admissibility of expert testimony. During the pre-trial process, either party may file motions to exclude expert testimony by comparing expert opinions to the Daubert factors. In response to pretrial motions, the judge has several options. While the Daubert test provides the basis for challenging proposed expert testimony, trial judges can use, reject, or modify any of the Daubert factors at their own discretion.
