Page 75 - Expert Witness

Appendix G: Daubert and Kumho Case Summaries

Two Supreme Court cases set the primary legal precedence for the admissibility of expert testimony in
federal cases: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 3786 (1993), and
Kumho Tire Co. vs. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1179 (1999). These cases expanded the
role of the trial judge as a gatekeeper for expert testimony. fn 30

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., the court addressed scientific evidence offered by an
expert witness and its admissibility. In summary, the court held that trial judges are to ensure expert wit-
ness testimony is based on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. In general, the Daub-
ert ruling consists of two parts:

1. Is the expertise and testimony of the expert witness relevant to matters at issue in the trial?

2. Is the testimony of the expert witness reliable because the theory or technique used by the expert

a. can and has been tested?

b. has been subjected to peer review and publication?

c. identifies the known or potential error rate?

d. is standardized and generally accepted within the relevant peer community?

Kumho Tire Co. vs. Carmichael

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael expanded the gatekeeping function of the trial judge under Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to all expert testimony based on scientific, technical, or other spe-
cialized knowledge, including experience-based technical testimony.

fn 30 These cases are referenced as guidance only and do not necessarily comprise all factors and consideration related to the admissi-
bility of expert witness testimony.

© 2020 Association of International Certified Professional Accountants 73