Our friends at Bracken Engineering asked our own #insurance defense #lawyer Maria Elena Abate to summarize what the recent #Daubert v. Frye Florida Supreme Court expert witness testimony decision means moving forward in #Florida. In a 4-2 decision, the Court declined to adopt an amendment to section 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code requiring use of the #federal “Daubert” standard.
“In a passionately written dissent, Justice Polston, joined in concurrence by Justice Canady, points to the “36 states that have rejected Frye in favor of Daubert” and questions: “Has the entire federal court system for the last 23 years as well as 36 states denied parties’ rights to a jury trial and access to courts? Do only Florida and a few other states have a constitutionally sound standard for the admissibility of expert testimony?” The answer, according to the dissent: “Of course not.”
It is likely that these constitutional concerns will be re-addressed in a “proper case or controversy” given the numerous court decisions which have been issued based on Daubert, from 2013 until the Court’s recent pronouncement. Yet, however, the decision ultimately turns out, the Florida Supreme Court’s refusal to amend the Florida Evidence Rules signals a practical return for practitioners to the less restrictive Frye standard, which applies only to expert testimony based on “new” or “novel” scientific evidence and revolves on whether expert testimony is “generally accepted” in a scientific community.”
- Read more in her article entitled “Pounding the Gavel on the Frye V Daubert Debate” HERE . . . (scroll down for second article)
#Litigation #Court #Law #Lawyer #Legal