Behrens & Jackson: New Study Supports Federal Expert Evidence Rule Reform

A new study conducted by Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) reveals that federal courts inconsistently apply Federal Rule of Evidence 702 when evaluating the admissibility of expert evidence. The study examined every federal case decided in 2020 in which a judge admitted, excluded, or partially admitted expert testimony under Rule 702—over 1,000 cases. The research focused on various objective factors, including whether the judge articulated the correct standard for admissibility as provided by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rules 702 and 104(a) require the proponent of expert testimony to establish its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.

Read the full article at the Federalist Society >>