daubert in florida: one year later
DESCRIPTION
DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER . July 18, 2014. LEARNING OBJECTIVES. Summary and Analysis of Florida Appellate Opinions on Daubert Discussion of Trial Court Orders on Daubert Procedural and Substantive Recommendations for Handling Daubert Motions in State Court . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER
July 18, 2014
![Page 2: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
LEARNING OBJECTIVES Summary and Analysis of Florida
Appellate Opinions on Daubert Discussion of Trial Court Orders on
Daubert Procedural and Substantive
Recommendations for Handling Daubert Motions in State Court
![Page 3: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
QUESTION ONE: Which German Philosopher was the Subject of a daubert Opinion by the
Florida Supreme Court? 1) Karl Marx 2) Rudolph Fichte 3) Johan Fiezte 4) Friedrich Neitzsche
![Page 4: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Friedrich Neitzsche
![Page 5: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Zakrewski v. State, 2014 WL 2810560 (Fla. June 20, 2014)
Prisoner files appeal of post conviction relief order
On appeal, he claims that the Daubert standard should be applied retroactively to the testimony of a penalty-phase witness concerning the beliefs of Nietzsche—this testimony occurred at a hearing in 1996
Holding: Daubert would not apply retroactively to a hearing held in 1996 and further that Nietzsche’s testimony would not be governed by Frye or Daubert
![Page 6: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Rule 90.702, Florida Statutes90.702 Testimony by Experts—if scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if:(1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case
![Page 7: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Question Two: What is the Burden of Proof?
1) Clear and Convincing 2) Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 3) Preponderance of the Evidence
![Page 8: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Daubert: Burden of Proof Proponent of the evidence has the
burden of proof to show the evidence is relevant and reliable by the PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE (US v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004))
![Page 9: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Question Three: What is the Standard of Review on Appeal?
1) De Novo 2) Abuse of Discretion
![Page 10: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Appellate Review The standard of review on appeal is
Abuse of Discretion, GE v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
![Page 11: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Question Four: What types of expert testimony does Daubert apply to?
1) Medical Doctors 2) Accident Reconstructionist 3) Damages Expert on Lost Profits in
Commercial Cases 4) All expert testimony
![Page 13: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![Page 14: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Daubert applies to ALL EXPERT TESTIMONY
Daubert analysis applies to all Expert Witness Testimony, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
![Page 15: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Daubert Flowchart
Is proffered testimony
expert testimony?
Qualifies as expert by
knowledge, skill, training or education
Is the expert’s testimony
relevant to the issue at hand?
Does the expert’s
scientific, technical, or
other specialized knowledge assist the trier of fact?
Is the testimony based on a
reliable foundation?
Is the testimony based on
sufficient facts or data?
Is the testimony the product of
reliable principles?
Has the witness applied the
principles and methods reliable
to the facts of the case?
Does the probative
value outweigh the
prejudice (Rule 403)
![Page 16: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Fla. Stat. 90.702, is the “witness qualified as an expert”?
Court should consider the knowledge, skill, experience, training, and expertise. The qualification standards remain the same as under the Frye test.
Introduce CV, peer-reviewed articles, prior testimony, establish that subject matter is sufficiently within the expert’s expertise, have they been Daubert-tested?
For example, defense accident reconstructionist may not be expert on roadway design
If challenging expert, look at when did expert have experience with product at issue (Walker v. CSX Transp. 650 F. 3d 1392 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming exclusion of expert whose limited experience with product at issue had “occurred over thirty to forty years before case arose”)
![Page 17: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
A. UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE
1) Expert testimony “which does not relate to an issue in the case is not relevant, and ergo, non-helpful.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591 (1993)
2) Does the testimony concern matters that are “beyond the understanding the average lay person?”
3) Is the opinion ipse dixit (“because I say so”?)
B. DETERMINE A FACT IN ISSUE? Rule 702 “helpfulness” standard requires a valid, scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility—Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592.
Will the Expert’s Scientific, Technical, or Other Specialized Knowledge Assist the Trier of Fact
![Page 18: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Is the Testimony Based on Sufficient Facts or Data?
Peer-reviewed articles
![Page 19: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Is the Testimony Based on Reliable Scientific Principles?
Has the expert’s testimony been tested?
Whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication?
Whether there is a known or potential error rate in methodology?
Whether the technique generally accepted in relevant community? (see Perez v. BellSouth—general acceptance can have bearing on inquiry)
![Page 20: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Question Five: True or False, Must Expert Testimony Meet All the Factors
1) True 2) False
![Page 21: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Reliability Factors False. The inquiry is flexible and
Daubert factors may not apply in every case.
Trial judges have broad latitude to serve as “gatekeepers”
![Page 22: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Has the Expert Reliably Applied the Principles and Method to the Facts in the
Case? Must be logical connection to
analysis and opinion? Is the opinion “ipse dixit”—Because I
say so Is there any analytical gap between
the analysis/calculation/test and the result?
Is there a fit between the analysis/calculation/test and the result?
![Page 23: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Ipse Dixit—”Because I say so” “WHEREAS, by amending s. 90.702, Florida Statutes, the
Florida Legislature intents to prohibit in the courts of this state pure opinion testimony as provided in Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So. 2d 542 (Fla 2007)—Laws of Fla. Ch. 2013-107
“[N]othing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence Requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.” General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997)
Perez v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 2014 WL 1613654 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 23, 2014) (excluding Plaintiff’s expert opinion that stress caused patient’s placental abruption, where “his conclusions were purely his own personal opinion, not supported by an credible scientific research”)
Snow v. Philip Morris (Judge Kest—Orange County March 25, 2014)
![Page 24: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Perez v. BellSouth Telecommunications
“express intent of the Legislature that the courts of this state interpret and apply the principles of expert testimony not only with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, but also with General Electric Co. v. Jointer and Kumho Tire Co., v. Carmichael as well”.
“Daubert test applies to all other expert opinion testimony” “Expert testimony that might otherwise qualify as ‘pure
opinion’ testimony is expressly prohibited.” The “legislative purpose of the new law is clear: to tighten
the rules for admissibility of expert testimony in the courts of this state.”
“section 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code indisputably applies retrospectively”.
Apply 90.702 “retrospectively to facts of this case. We are not the first district court to do so.” See Conley v. State, 129 So. 3d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) –reversed and remanded for new trial under Daubert to evidence of PPG test in Jimmy Ryce Act proceeding
![Page 26: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Perez v. BellSouth--Facts
Expert had never before related placental abruption to workplace stress and knew of no one who had
Was no scientific support for his opinion
Opinion was classic example of common fallacy of assuming casualty from temporal sequence
![Page 27: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Question Six: Is a hearing required on a Daubert motion?
1) Yes 2) No
![Page 29: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
A Daubert Hearing is Not Required
Court may rule upon the papers (affidavits, expert reports, depositions)
![Page 30: DAUBERT IN FLORIDA: ONE YEAR LATER](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062305/568164d6550346895dd714f6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Daubert Procedures Daubert applies to both Plaintiffs and Defendant’s experts Identify Daubert issues—Do written Daubert discovery
(Interrogs, RTP) Daubert Depositions Request Daubert evidentiary hearing as soon as discovery
completed Request sufficient time for Daubert hearing Do not make Daubert challenge during middle of trial