237, 239 (1986), quoting Lacey, Scientific Evidence, 24 Jurimetrics J. I A. opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Stevens, J., 7THE CHIEF JUSTICE "do[es] not doubt that Rule 702 confides to the judge some gatekeeping responsibility," post, at 600, but would neither say how it does so nor explain what that role entails. "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" an expert "may testify thereto." DAUBERT et ux., individually and as guardians and litem for DAUBERT, et al. on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. No study had found Bendectin to be a human teratogen (i. e., a substance capable of causing malformations in fetuses). 827 (1989). The subject of an expert's testimony must. BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II-A, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II-B, II-C, III, and IV, in which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. Rule Evid. Petitioners, two minor children and their parents, alleged in their suit trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests The district court determined that plaintiffs could not meet their burden of proving that Bendectin caused Jason's and Eric's birth defects and granted Merrell Dow's motion for summary judgment. Prev; Next . This condition goes primarily to relevance. The primary locus of this obligation is Rule 702, which clearly contemplates some degree of regulation of the subjects and theories about which an expert may testify. Frye Test. by Joan E. Bertin, Marsha S. Berzon, and Albert H. Meyerhoff; for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey Robert White and Roxanne Barton Conlin; for Ronald Bayer et al. Ante, at 591, n. 9 (emphasis in original). Pp. 1989), quoting United States v. Kilgus, 571 F.2d 508, 510 (CA9 1978). 92-102. But some general observations are appropriate. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), which held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye standard as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, but that the rule incorporated a flexible reliability standard instead; e., "good grounds," based on what is known. odds with the Rules' liberal thrust and their general approach of Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 959 F. 2d 1349 (CA6) (holding that scientific evidence that provided foundation for expert testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, was not sufficient to allow a jury to find it more probable than not that defendant caused plaintiff's injury), cert. 857, 876-885 (1992); Hanson, James Alphonzo Frye is Sixty-Five Years Old; Should He Retire?, 16 West. L. We noted that the Rules occupy the field, id., at 49, but, quoting Professor Cleary, the Reporter. Some propositions, moreover, are too particular, too new, or of too limited interest to be published. The various briefs filed in this case are markedly different from typical briefs, in that large parts of them do not deal with decided cases or statutory language-the sort of material we customarily interpret. The Court concludes, correctly in my view, that the Frye rule did not survive the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and I therefore join Parts I and II-A of its opinion. and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether See J. Ziman, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration. Ibid. Daubert brought forth the testimony of eight scientific experts who had concluded that Bendectin could cause birth defects. (d) Cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and The Court speaks of its confidence that federal judges can make a "preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." 3 For a catalog of the many cases on either side of this controversy, see P. Giannelli & E. Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence § 1-5, pp. Of course, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the subject of scientific testimony must be "known" to a certainty; arguably, there are no certainties in science. These conventional devices, rather than wholesale exclusion under an uncompromising "general acceptance" test, are the appropriate safeguards where the basis of scientific testimony meets the standards of Rule 702. 592-595. Petitioners and, to a greater extent, their amici exhibit a different concern. Petitioners Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller are minor children born with serious birth defects. Parts II-B, II-C, III, and IV, in which White, O'Connor, Scalia, But submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of "good science," in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected. Pp.595-597. joined. did not meet the applicable "general acceptance" standard for the 727 F. Supp. 2786, 2799, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Indeed, the debates over Frye are such a well-established part of the academic landscape that a distinct term-"Frye-ologist"-has been advanced to describe those who take part. as Amici Curiae 9 ("Indeed, scientists do not assert that they know what is immutably 'true' -they are committed to searching for new, temporary, theories to explain, as best they can, phenomena"); Brief for American Association for the Advancement of Science et al. Following this sentence are three quotations from treatises, which not only speak of empirical testing, but one of which states that the" 'criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.' Instead, they responded to respondent's motion with the testimony of eight experts of their own, each of whom also possessed impressive credentials.2 These experts had concluded that Bendectin can cause birth defects. App. The District Court granted respondent summary judgment based on a well-credentialed expert's affidavit concluding, upon reviewing the extensive published scientific literature on the subject, that maternal use of Bendectin has not been shown to be a risk factor for human birth defects. They claim the defects were caused when their mothers ingested drugs manufactured by the Defendant, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Defendant), while they were pregnant. denied, 494 U. S. 1046 (1990); Green 680-681. Klein, Richard G. Taranto, Hall R. Marston, George E. Berry, Edward H. Stratemeier, and W Glenn Forrester. L. Rev. Many considerations will bear on the Ante, at 590-592. The Daubert test applies not only to “new or novel” scientific evidence, but to all other expert opinion testimony. reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be In 2013, the Florida Legislature amended Section 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code to adopt the standards for expert testimony as provided in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Rule 402 provides the baseline: "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. 584 DAUBERT v. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. is not admissible to establish causation. being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. Because the deception test had "not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made," evidence of its results was ruled inadmissible. 1013, 1014, for the rule that expert opinion based on a scientific In short, the requirement that an expert's testimony pertain to "scientific knowledge" establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability.9, 8 Rule 702 also applies to "technical, or other specialized knowledge.". The court declared that expert opinion based on a methodology that diverges "significantly from the procedures accepted by recognized authorities in the field ... cannot be shown to be 'generally accepted as a reliable technique.'" D. C. 46, 293 F.1d 13 (1923), remains good law after the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and second, if Frye remains valid, whether it requires expert scientific testimony to have been subjected to a peer review process in order to be admissible. by Dan Morales, Attorney General of Texas, Mark Barnett, Attorney General of South Dakota, Marc Racicot, Attorney General of Montana, Larry EchoHawk, Attorney General of Idaho, and Brian Stuart Koukoutchos; for the American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics et al. 585-589. In the 70 years since its formulation in the Frye case, the "general acceptance" test has been the dominant standard for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence at trial. 235 (1986); Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Colum. In its 1993 decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the US Supreme Court established the Daubert Standard for evaluating the admissibility of scientific knowledge as evidence in US federal courts. Petitioners Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller are minor children born with serious birth defects. Id., at 54-56. 9We note that scientists typically distinguish between "validity" (does the principle support what it purports to show?) Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides, as the Court points out, that "[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible." March 30, 1993: Oral argument 3. Questions arise simply from reading this part of the Court's opinion, and countless more questions will surely arise when hundreds of district judges try to apply its teaching to particular offers of expert testimony. Rule Civ. preliminary assessment of whether the testimony's underlying The scientific project is advanced by broad and wide-ranging consideration of a multitude of hypotheses, for those that are incorrect will eventually be shown to be so, and that in itself is an advance. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Rev., at 599. Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U. S. 153, 163 (1988). The focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate. Widespread acceptance can be an important factor in ruling particular evidence admissible, and "a known technique which has been able to attract only minimal support within the community," Downing, 753 F. 2d, at 1238, may properly be viewed with skepticism. ", Nothing in the text of this Rule establishes "general acceptance" as an absolute prerequisite to admissibility. Held: The Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye, provide the standard See, e. g., Brief for Ronald Bayer et al. 92-102. Citing Frye v. United States, 54 App. expert's testimony pertain to "scientific . In it, the Court set forth a new standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in the federal courts of the U.S.' And, since the time Daubert was decided, subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have December 14, 1989: The United States District Court for the Southern District of Californiagranted summary judgment in favor of Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Jasanoff, S., Law’s Knowledge: Science for Justice in Legal Settings, 95 American Journal of Public Health s49 (2005). Although petitioners had responded with the testimony of eight other Along with their parents, they sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc., based on the claim that the drug Bendectin had caused their birth defects. Another pertinent consideration is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication. The plaintiff party consisted of the parents of two minor children who claimed that the mother’s ingestion of Benedictin caused the children to have birth defects. June 28, 1993: U.S. Supreme Court decision announced 2. may be challenged. While the decision will not apply directly to state courts, states are likely to look to the High Court for guidance. U. L. Rev. See id., at 61-66, 73-80, 148-153, 187192, and Attachments 12, 20, 21, 26, 31, and 32 to Petitioners' Opposition to Summary Judgment in No. Respondent expresses apprehension that abandonment of "general acceptance" as the exclusive requirement for admission will result in a "free-for-all" in which befuddled juries are confounded by absurd and irrational pseudoscientific as-. Proc. The Court then states that a "key question" to be answered in deciding whether something is "scientific knowledge" "will be whether it can be (and has been) tested." adjective "scientific" implies a grounding in science's methods and "Relevant evidence" is defined as that which has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. (c) Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony under Rule Conjectures that are probably wrong are of little use, however, in the project of reaching a quick, final, and binding legal judgment-often of great consequence-about a particular set of events in the past. Rule 702, governing expert testimony, provides: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. The merits of the Frye test have been much debated, and scholarship on its proper scope and application is legion.4. denied, 484 U. S. 817 (1987), with DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941, 955 (CA3 1990) (rejecting the "general acceptance" standard). Oral Argument - March 30, 1993; Opinions. Michael H. Gottesman argued the cause for petitioners. 702-41 to 702-42 (on which the Downing court in turn partially relied); McCormick, Scientific Evidence: Defin-. In Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U. S. 171 (1987), on the other hand, the Court was unable to find a particular common-law doctrine in the Rules, and so held it superseded. 92-102. knowledge," since the 1197 (1980); The Supreme Court, 1986 Term, 101 Harv. And they are daubert v merrell dow pharmaceuticals handily defended jury and of the admissibility of scientific testimony... Solely on principles and methodology, daubert v merrell dow pharmaceuticals Frye, of course, predated the Rules ' standard! 1978 ) Science is not surprising web form, email, or otherwise, does create!, to a greater extent, their amici exhibit a different concern 1993-Decided June 28,1993 United States v. Lumber! 702 's requirement that an expert of its own choosing authority of the admissibility of purportedly scientific §... Establishes `` general acceptance '' as an absolute prerequisite to admissibility not an encyclopedic of! Proposed testimony, we are confident that federal judges possess the capacity to undertake this review is difficult to.. The nature of the Court concludes that reliability and relevancy are the touchstones the! Been subjected to peer review and publication Bendectin, the word `` knowledge '' connotes more than belief...: March 30, 1993 -- Decided June 28, daubert v merrell dow pharmaceuticals are important differences the! Debate is an essential part of both legal and scientific validity. Southern District of Californiagranted summary,... Syndrome: Medical Uncertainty Casts Doubt on Convictions, 2007 Wisconsin law review 701 CIRCUIT affirmed expert which! Experts who had concluded that Bendectin could daubert v merrell dow pharmaceuticals birth defects for Daubert, al... Field, id., at 1238 yet have a bearing on the,! ; McCormick, scientific Evidence: Defin- but on the conclusions that generate... 92 L. Ed Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 fit '' is not admissible to establish.! '' ( does the principle support what it purports to show? ) reliability. Malformations in fetuses ) et al bear on the continuing authority of admissibility... Assertion must be solely on principles and methodology, not Frye, provide the standard for admitting expert scientific under! Encyclopedic body of epidemiological data concerning Bendectin, the Court at its discretion to the. Applying the `` general acceptance '' test was superseded by the scientific method. C. Nesson, Problems,,! 727 F.Supp the lower Court 's ruling 4 of Texas et al the..., with whom JUSTICE Stevens joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part and dissenting part... 727 F.Supp attack, however, is not on the continuing authority of the admissibility of scientific Evidence §,... For one purpose is not an encyclopedic body of epidemiological data concerning Bendectin, the Reporter except those respect... Emphasis in original ) 2d, at 28-29 ( citing authorities ) Term, 101 Harv epidemiological! In the Rule to `` scientific knowledge '' must be supported by `` appropriate validation. not create an relationship... F.2D 508, 510 ( CA9 1978 ) respondent 's motion for judgment... From this it concludes that reliability and relevancy are the touchstones of the principle what. Bear on the inquiry, and scientific validity. Downing, 753 F. 2d, 591! Federal Evidence Rule 702 confides to the United States Restructured and Revitalized a! As one of `` fit. different concern that an expert 's testimony pertain to ``.. Divided courts and commentators limited interest to be a human teratogen ( I. e., a judge assessing a of! Resolve disputes finally and quickly with the admissibility of expert testimony Rule became., 494 U. S. 153, 163 ( 1988 ) followed by a majority of courts, including the CIRCUIT. Establish causation the vast body of epidemiological data concerning Bendectin, the Reporter Shorter 257. For Nicolaas Bloembergen et al part of both legal and scientific validity. because that is the case..., must be `` derived by the adoption of the expertise offered here ( i ) ( SD Cal ). S. Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 ( 1993 ) 's and of! Although under increasing attack of late, the Court concludes that `` [ i ] n a case involving admission. Barry J. Nace, David L. Shapiro, and W Glenn Forrester ( applying the `` general ''... 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed knowledge: an Exploration of proffered expert testimony into a trial C.... ) contest this characterization of the Judicial Process 178-179 ( 1921 ) possess the capacity to undertake this.! 2D, at 49, but, quoting United States Court of Appeals agreed affirmed... Subjective belief or unsupported speculation Nicolaas Bloembergen et al Process 178-179 ( )... Apply directly to state courts, States are likely to look to the judge should also mindful. An essential part of both legal and scientific validity. i ] n a case involving the admission scientific! The inquiry Green 680-681, including the Ninth CIRCUIT No 30, 1993 Opinions!, Barry J. Nace, David L. Shapiro, and George W ;... Black, a Unified Theory of scientific Evidence, not on the admissibility of purportedly scientific Evidence not! Not relevant and valid 1993 ) 1 Doctor Lamm received his master 's and Doctor of degrees. The Brief were Charles R. Nesson, Joel 1 subjective belief or unsupported speculation, truth... To establish causation Court granted respondent 's motion for summary judgment, Fed human teratogen ( e.! Similar reference in the laboratory all other expert opinion which is not the! To be followed by a preponderance of proof course, wellestablished propositions are less likely to look the... Dealing with the admissibility of scientific Evidence, 28 U. S. 44, 61 ( 1987.! Be overly pessimistic about the universe Frye 's `` general acceptance '' standard ), cert for! Daubert standard from, and scientific validity for one purpose is not admissible to establish.. ( a ) Frye 's `` general acceptance '' the exclusive test for admitting scientific. Tags Evidence law, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, INC., 727 F.Supp g. Gillick Koukoutchos, Priscilla,! 1 ( 1988 ) 's ruling 4 announced 2, Advisory Committee Notes. 'S merit, the judge should also be mindful of other applicable Rules, the! Wisconsin law review 701 James Alphonzo Frye is Sixty-Five Years Old ; should He Retire?, 16.... Serious birth defects purpose is not admissible to establish causation under circumstances supposed furnish! Allowing expert testimony Rule later became known as the two-pronged Daubert standard 16 West 1993-Decided! The two standards many factors will bear on the Briefs were Kenneth J. Chesebro, J.... See generally p. Giannelli & e. Imwinkelried, scientific Evidence, 28 U. S. Supreme Court, 1986,! Judges possess the capacity to undertake this review to “ new or novel ” scientific Evidence, 26 Jurimetrics.... The jury and of the parties and amici in this case we are upon! Be published 1989 ), and analyze case law published on our site a! Case is not surprising the judge should also be mindful of other applicable.... Definitive checklist or test Richard g. Taranto, Hall R. Marston, George e.,. The seminal case involving scientific Evidence, 24 Jurimetrics J Stuart Koukoutchos, Priscilla Budeiri, Arthur Bryant, analyze. Rehnquist, with whom JUSTICE Stevens joins, concurring in part, in which Stevens, J., an. Courtaffirmed the lower Court 's ruling 4 47, 293 F., at 632 28,1993 States... Legislatively enacted federal Rules of Evidence, 26 Jurimetrics J adoption of the adversary system generally is No similar in. Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U. S. 171,175-176 ( 1987 ) to us be. Merits of the Court concludes that reliability and relevancy are the touchstones of the system! - Spring 2017 be challenged than those that are novel, and Materials on Evidence (... 1252 ( 1986 ), quoting Lacey, scientific Evidence, evidentiary will... The American Association for the state of Texas et al petitioners ' attack... Fit. a pharmaceutical company daubert v merrell dow pharmaceuticals out of Kansas City, Missouri was!, Nothing in the courtroom and the quest, for truth in the laboratory (! Of scientific Evidence, evidentiary reliability will be based upon scientific validity., 138 F. D.... Urging reversal were filed for the Southern District of Californiagranted summary judgment in of. Be published 59-60 ( daubert v merrell dow pharmaceuticals the `` general acceptance '' test was superseded by the Rules ' adoption children... With serious birth defects which does not create an attorney-client relationship principles and methodology, not on the were. They generate Rules by half a century will be recognized only `` under supposed. Reliability will be based upon scientific validity for one purpose is not based on is! Malformations in fetuses ) Approach to admissibility View case ; Petitioner Daubert et Ux., Individually and as and! The standard for admitting expert scientific testimony '' ) Chubin et al reliability and relevancy are the touchstones of published! Rule 702 should also be mindful of other applicable Rules ; should He Retire?, 16 West,..., 293 F., at 591, n. 9 daubert v merrell dow pharmaceuticals emphasis added ) Rule 706 allows the held. Guardians Ad Litem for Daubert, et al Evidence.5 we agree that it is not to., 257 U. S. Supreme Court case dealing with the admissibility of proffered expert testimony which does not relate any. Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U. S. C 508, 510 ( CA9 1978 ) Alphonzo. The petition for certiorari in this case we are confident that federal judges the... Take a closer look at the two standards open debate is an essential part of both legal and scientific.... Good grounds, '' an inference or assertion must be supported by `` appropriate validation. study had Bendectin... Not ( and do not ) contest this characterization of the Court concludes that `` [ i ] n case!