Daubert or Frye?
On the morning of September 1, 2016, as Hurricane Hermine lumbered toward the Florida panhandle, the State’s highest court heard oral argument on a proposal that would change the course on admissibility of expert testimony in Florida. In 2013, the Florida legislature adopted for Florida state courts the standard for admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the seminal 1993 United States Supreme Court case on this topic. By 2013, Daubert was being followed by all federal courts and the majority of state courts around the country. Under the Daubert standard, the trial judge serves as a gatekeeper for expert testimony which is admissible only 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 expert witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. The Daubert standard replaced the Frye standard, named for the 1923 United Supreme Court case of the same name, under which the proponent of expert testimony is required to establish “general acceptance” of the underlying scientific principles and methodology. But Frye was only applied where an expert attempted to offer an opinion based on new or novel scientific techniques, and the Frye standard was subject to an exception such that if the proffered opinion relied solely on the expert’s personal experience and training -- his or her “pure opinion” -- the testimony was deemed admissible without further scrutiny.
The adoption of Daubert in Florida was met with enthusiasm by Florida practitioners who believe the stricter standard enhances reliability of expert testimony. The countervailing view is that application of the Daubert standard has overwhelmed our court system because of the required ‘preliminary’ hearing and the depth of analysis required to determine some of the more complex Daubert challenges. Some Daubert opponents argue that the standard may restrict access to courts for those individuals who are most aggrieved – i.e., those who lack resources to retain sophisticated expert witnesses or pay attorneys’ fees associated with lengthy Daubert proceedings.
To address concerns raised by the adoption of Daubert, the Code and Rules of Evidence Committee of the Florida Bar (“CREC”) formed a working group to analyze the legislation which resulted in the adoption of the Daubert standard. CREC recommended that the Florida Supreme Court reject the adoption of the Legislature’s 2013 amendments to the Florida Evidence Code and return to the Frye standard, to the extent the 2013 amendments are procedural in nature and therefore within the province of the Supreme Court, not the legislature. This recommendation was the subject of the proceedings in the Florida Supreme Court on September 1, and drew the attention of litigators across the State. Indeed, almost 200 public comments on CREC’s recommendation were filed by attorneys and private companies, all weighing in on the attributes of their preferred standard.
At oral argument, the Court heard ‘war stories’ of successive Daubert motions filed as tactical maneuvers, and of Daubert hearings being held on weekends because overburdened trial courts had no additional time during the work week to schedule these lengthy hearings. Proponents of the Daubert standard argued that it has not been misused since its adoption in 2013, and has instead brought a greater reliability to expert evidence juries are asked to review. The Court focused heavily on whether the standard for the admissibility of expert testimony is a substantive or procedural matter, probing whether the question is properly decided by the legislature or the judiciary. Daubert proponents argued that it is substantive and properly determined by the legislature, while Frye supporters maintained it is a procedural issue within the purview of the Supreme Court.
While it remains unclear just how the Supreme Court will ultimately come down on the Daubert v. Frye question, one thing is certain – Florida litigators are monitoring the issue closely and bracing for the impact the Supreme Court’s decision may have on their clients and their practices.
- Of Counsel
Jennifer P. Sommerville is an attorney in the Orlando office of Shutts & Bowen LLP, where she is a member of the Construction Litigation Practice Group. She has over 20 years of experience representing clients in complex commercial ...
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
- SEC Adopts New Cybersecurity Rules
- From 😊 to 💼: Can Emojis Create a Legally Binding Contract?
- HB-3: An Overview of ESG Factors Relating to Public Funds Investment and Financial Industry Impacts
- The Live Local Act Part 2 - Affordable Housing Incentives
- Florida's Live Local Act
- Taking an Appeal to Florida’s New Sixth District Court of Appeal? Three Local Rules You Need to Know
Popular Categories
- Business of Real Estate
- Real Estate Law
- Construction
- Construction Litigation
- Development/Land Use
- Landlord-Tenant
- Trusts and Estates
- Appeals
- Contracts
- Litigation
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Business
- Foreclosures
- Florida Government Contracts
- Property Tax
- Estate planning
- Supreme Court
- Conveyances
- Appellate Blog
- Cyber fraud
- Technology
- Lease
- Wealth planning
- Government
- Florida Bid Protests
- Government Contracts
- Business
- Insurance
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- Public Contracts
- GAO
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Bid Protest
- Title
- Cybersecurity
- Data Security
- Promissory Notes
- Construction
- Regulatory Compliance
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Government Contracting
- Florida Public Contracts
- Small Business
- Bidding
- Compliance
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Administrative Law
- Public procurement
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Florida Procurement
- Bankruptcy
- Eviction
- Mortgages
- Record on Appeal
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Attorneys' Fees
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Maritime
- Briefing
- Request for Proposal
- Commercial Brokerage
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Florida Public Procurement
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Certiorari
- email hacking
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- State Government Contracts
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Finality
- Preservation
- Technology
- Evidence
- Expert
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Government Vendor
- Mootness
- Public Private Partnership
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- June 2024
- May 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016