The Daubert Challenge

The Daubert Challenge or Standard is simply when an opposing counsel questions the opposing side expert’s testimony. The admissibility and validity of an expert’s testimony is challenged during a hearing where said expert is brought before a judge. The expert or counsel who is relying on said expert is required to prove that his or her reasoning and methodology is both scientifically valid and applicable to the case in question. The Daubert Standard allows the court to be the gatekeeper for the court room when it comes to expert testimony. Although it can be difficult to deal with when an attorney needs an expert’s testimony to prove a case, the standard does serve a worthwhile purpose, that being to prevent unscientific and out-there testimony from being used to convict a person of a crime.
The term “Daubert Challenge” comes from a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court Case, where Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Daubert. In this case, the court set certain criteria that would determine what type of expert testimony would be admissible in court cases from then on. The standard was further expounded upon in 1999 during the Kumho Tire v. Carmichael case. The court altered the Daubert Standard once again to include testimony of a non-scientific