Rule 702: The Basics
Rule 702 allows expert witnesses to testify if:
Their knowledge will help the trier of fact.
Their testimony is based on sufficient facts or data.
Their methods are reliable.
Their application of those methods to the case is sound.
🔄 Key Changes Over Time
🏛️ 2000 Amendment
Codified the Supreme Court’s Daubert standard.
Emphasized the judge’s gatekeeping role.
Required that expert testimony be both relevant and reliable.
🧪 2011 Clarification
Minor stylistic changes for clarity.
Reaffirmed that judges must assess reliability before admitting expert testimony.
⚖️ 2023 Amendment — The Game Changer
Effective December 1, 2023, this amendment was designed to correct widespread misapplication of Rule 702. Here’s what changed:
Issue Addressed: Presumption of admissibility
2023 Amendment Impact: Clarified that expert testimony is not presumed admissible. Proponents must prove admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issue Addressed: Judicial gatekeeping
2023 Amendment Impact: Re-emphasized the judge’s duty to rigorously assess reliability—not defer to juries.
Issue Addressed: Overstatement by experts
2023 Amendment Impact: Added language to prevent experts from making claims that exceed what their methods and data can support.
Issue Addressed: Application of methods
2023 Amendment Impact: Stressed that courts must evaluate how experts apply their methods—not just the methods themselves.
🧑‍⚖️ Practical Implications for Legal Professionals
Stronger Daubert motions: Courts are now more receptive to challenges based on flawed methodology or overreach.
Higher burden on proponents: You must affirmatively demonstrate reliability and relevance—not rely on credentials alone.
Tighter expert reports: Experts must clearly link their conclusions to sound methods and factual foundations.
đź“š Further Reading
For a detailed guide, check out this excellent resource: The Litigator’s Handbook of Forensic Medicine, Psychiatry, and Psychology, Chapters 2 & 3.
