Attorney Aaron Martinez and his team frequently handle litigation where expert witness testimony is crucial evidence. But getting an expert's opinions admitted at trial is no simple matter - it requires carefully navigating the rules and case law governing expert admissibility. In both state and federal courts, the key standards derive from the U.S. Supreme Court's influential decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 (1993) and its progeny.

In Michigan courts, the rules and analysis for expert admissibility stem from MRE 702 and the Michigan Supreme Court's 2004 ruling in Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp. Ensuring your expert's testimony will be allowed requires understanding these Daubert-based principles and preparing a strong foundation to overcome potential challenges. Here's what you need to know:

The Daubert Standard and MRE 702
Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony, stating: "If the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise..." This rule essentially has three key requirements for admitting expert testimony: 1) The witness must be qualified as an expert based on their credentials and relevant expertise. 2) The expert's testimony must assist the trier of fact by providing specialized knowledge outside the understanding of a layperson. 3) The expert's testimony must be reliable and based on sufficient facts/data and reliable principles/methods properly applied.

It's that third prong of reliability where the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Daubert comes into play. Daubert outlined specific factors courts should consider in evaluating whether an expert's methodology is scientifically valid and reliable:

1. Whether the theory/technique can be and has been tested

2. Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication

3. The known or potential rate of error

4. The existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation

5. Whether the theory/technique has been generally accepted in the relevant scientific community

While these factors emerged from examining scientific expert testimony, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the Daubert analysis is flexible and can apply to other kinds of expert testimony as well, including technical, specialized, and experience-based expertise.

Michigan Adopts Daubert in Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler
Prior to 2004, Michigan courts followed the more limited "general acceptance" test from the pre-Daubert case Frye v United States for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. But in Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, the Michigan Supreme Court explicitly adopted the Daubert framework and standards for evaluating expert testimony under MRE 702. The Gilbert court held that the Daubert factors are the proper criteria for determining reliability of expert testimony, whether it involves scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.

The court emphasized that the Daubert analysis is flexible and the factors are not a rigid checklist, but rather a helpful guide for evaluating an expert's principles and methodology. Additionally, Gilbert held that under MRE 702, the court must also separately consider whether the expert's opinion fits the facts of the case - in other words, whether the testimony is truly relevant and will assist the trier of fact. This "fit" requirement ensures there is a valid connection between the expert's reasoning and the pertinent issue in the case.

So in Michigan courts today, the Daubert factors and the "fit" analysis govern the reliability and relevance evaluations for admitting expert testimony under MRE 702. Judges act as gatekeepers to ensure the expert is qualified and their testimony is reliable, relevant, and will genuinely assist the jury.

Overcoming Daubert Challenges in Michigan Courts
Given these stringent standards, it's critical to work closely with your expert witnesses from the outset to ensure their opinions will satisfy the Daubert/Gilbert requirements for admissibility. Some key strategies our firm employs: 📝 Carefully review the expert's qualifications, experience, and credentials to establish they are truly an expert in the relevant field and methodology. 🔬 Examine the expert's principles, techniques, and data sources to confirm they are reliable. 🤺 Challenging the expert’s qualifications or opinions.

Many firms and attorneys lack the experience to fully appreciate the Daubert/MRE 702 safeguards which is why you need the best at your disposal. Attorney Aaron Martinez has handled many scientific challenges in courts throughout the state of Michigan.