In its 1993 Daubert decision, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standards judges should use in deciding whether to admit expert evidence into federal cases. The Supreme Court directed judges to evaluate the method and reasoning underlying the expert evidence and to admit only evidence that was reliable and relevant. This study examines how judges have changed the way they evaluate expert evidence since Daubert and how the parthes proposing and challenging evidence have responded.
The research was funded by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice. It should help Congress, the Supreme Court, the Federal Rules Committee, and other policymakers better assess the current system for screening expert evidence, target areas where more detailed study is necessary, and evaluate possible reforms.
For more information about this report, contact:
Lloyd Dixon Institute for Civil Justice RAND 1700 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 TEL: (310)393-0411 x7480 FAX: (310)451-6979 Email: Lloyd_Dixon@rand.org