Kumho Tire Co. vs. Carmichael: Reigning In Experts in a High Tech Age
For as long as any of us have been practicing law, one of the “givens” in our business has been that the job of determining whether an expert’s opinions are credible and should be believed is for the jury, not the judge. In Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court began chipping away at this notion, holding that in cases involving cutting-edge science, the judge should screen expert testimony and disallow opinions based upon unproven, untested and speculative science.
However, until last month, Daubert was confined in the Tenth Circuit to a narrow strategy of cases. This changed when the Supreme Court decided Kumho Tire Co., v. Carmichael, No. 97-1709 (Mar. 23, 1999). Kumho Tire now gives federal trial judges vast power to regulate and even exclude all expert testimony. There is a good chance that Kumho Tire will eventually become accepted practice in Utah’s courtrooms as well. Therefore, every trial lawyer should closely read this case and understand its import.
…In my view, this case is about power – that is, transferring power from juries to judges. The drafters of our country’s Constitution possessed a deep distrust for authority, especially the authority of judges. The result was the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to a trial by jury, “in any suit, at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars…” As things developed, we evolved a judicial system in which juries decided which expert’s opinions were right and which were not. In turn, juries have depended upon the abilities of trial lawyers to skillfully cross-examine expert witnesses, thereby separating myth from reality.
Read the entire article here.
This article was written by Jeff Eisenberg, for more information please click here.
