Comment on the Proposed Revision of Federal Rule of Evidence 702: "Clarifying" the Court's Gatekeeping Responsibility Over Expert Testimony
Loading...
Authors
Mangrum, Richard Collin
Issue Date
2022-12
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|
Expert testimony has always presented the courts with an analytical dilemma. On the one hand, jurors may benefit from the insight of experts in understanding complex issues. On the other hand, jurors have limited capacity to evaluate whether expert testimony is “reliable” even aided by the crucibles of cross-examination, rebuttal expert testimony, and closing arguments. One procedural way to handle expert “overstatements” is for the court to have a strong “gatekeeping” responsibility for excluding from the jury unreliable expert opinions. Crafting an evidentiary rule that will effectively exclude unreliable expert opinions without depriving the jury of reliable opinions has proven challenging. The Federal Rules Advisory Committee recently proposed a revision to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Rule 702”). Revised Rule 702 clarifies, not changes, the “gatekeeping” responsibility of the judge over unreliable expert opinions.
A brief review of the history of the court’s gatekeeping responsibility over unreliable expert testimony may clarify the issue and explain the rationale for the Advisory Committee proposing amendments to “clarify” the court’s gatekeeping responsibility under Rule 702.
A brief review of the history of the court’s gatekeeping responsibility over unreliable expert testimony may clarify the issue and explain the rationale for the Advisory Committee proposing amendments to “clarify” the court’s gatekeeping responsibility under Rule 702.
Description
Citation
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law