Whether Expert Testimony is Correct vs. Whether It is Reliable — Good Quote
From Main Street Am. Group v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22667 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2010):
This court has "broad discretion in admitting scientific testimony that could later be tested by vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof." *** The proponents of expert testimony need not demonstrate that their experts' theories are correct, but rather that the opinions are reliable by a preponderance of the evidence. *** Here, Defendants' critiques go to the veracity of Simpson's theory, not its reliability. Their concerns can adequately be addressed during routine cross-examination and by testimony of their own witnesses. The fact that Simpson did not conduct testing does not change this analysis. Case law is clear that testing is not a requirement for admissibility under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. *** And, contrary to Defendants' implications, Simpson did not need to address the testing carried out by their own expert. While such testimony might be useful, it is not significant for the purposes of determining admissibility.
Share this article: