Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Key kumho emphasizes that a finding that an expert

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: LL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. [Expert Testimony: Reliability, Relevancy, and Gatekeeping: FRE 702] Facts/Procedural Posture: Daubert and Schuller born with serious birth defects Sued Merrell down in California state court alleging that mother's ingestion of Bendectin caused the birth defects. Daubert's expert witness concluded that maternal use of Bendectin during first trimester of pregnancy has not been shown to be a risk factor for human birth defects. Appellant's expert witnesses showed that Bendectin can cause birth defects based upon test tube and live animal studies District court granted Daubert's motion for summary judgment determining that appellant's evidence was not admissible b/c it did not meet general acceptance standard. Issue: In order to be admissible, must scientific evidence be based on a principle that it is "sufficiently established to have general acceptance in the field in which it belongs." Holding: General acceptance standard of Frye no longer applies...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online