The American judiciary traditionally had a laissez-faire approach toward the admissibility of most categories of expert testimony. This approach ended in federal courts when the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a reliability test for the admissibility of expert testimony in a series of three decisions: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., General Electric Co. v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd., v. Carmichael. An amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in 2000 then codified a stringent interpretation of the “Daubert trilogy.” Many states also have adopted some version of the Daubert reliability test. Given that expert testimony is crucial to modern civil and criminal litigation, the emergence of the Daubert–702 reliability test for expert testimony is probably the most radical, sudden, and consequential change in the modern history of the law of evidence....

The February 2009 issue of Engage is now online. Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than is all too often found in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

The Federalist Society's Criminal Law Practice Group presented this panel discussion at the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 20, 2008. The panelists included Dr. John S. Baker Jr. of Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Hon. Alice Fisher of Latham & Watkins and former Assistant Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice, Mr. Daniel E. Reidy of Jones Day, Mr. Robert Trout of Trout Cacheris, PLLC, and Judge Merrick Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as the moderator.

The October 2008 issue of Engage is now online. Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than is all too often found in today’s legal community. [Read now!]