Expert Testimony Should be Assessed in Light of Potentially Prejudicial Effect — 702 & 403
From Gell v. Town of Aulander, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4553 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2009):
The court must balance its broad discretion and flexibility when determining the admissibility of expert testimony with the concerns of Rule 403 to ensure that the probative value of the proffered testimony is not "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury." Fed. R. Evid. 403; see U.S. v. Dorsey, 45 F.3d 809, 815 (4th Cir. 1995). "Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it. Because of this risk, the judge in weighing possible prejudice against probative force under Rule 403 of the present rules exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595 (internal citations omitted).
Share this article: