Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials.

Abstract

The results of 3 surveys (1 each of federal judges in 1991 and 1998 and another of attorneys in 1999) indicate that practices and beliefs concerning expert testimony have changed in the wake of the 1993 Supreme Court decision on admissibility in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Reporting both on their general experience with expert testimony and on their most recent civil trial involving such testimony, judges and attorneys indicated that judges were more likely in 1998 than in 1991 to scrutinize expert testimony before trial and then limit or exclude proffered testimony. The results describe common problems with expert testimony, the characteristics of trials in which expert testimony is introduced, and the types of experts who testify.