In its 1993 Daubert decision, the United States Supreme Court clarified the standards judges should use in deciding whether to admit expert evidence into federal cases. The Supreme Court directed judges to evaluate the method and reasoning underlying the expert evidence and to admit only evidence that was reliable and relevant. This study examines how judges have changed the way they evaluate expert evidence since Daubert and how the parties proposing and challenging evidence have responded as a result.
"… This study should not be underestimated. It makes a valuable contribution, if incremental contribution to the evolving understanding of how the DAUBERT standard is actually working."
- The Law and Politics Book Review
The research described in this report was performed under the auspices of the RAND Institute for Civil Justice.
This report is part of the RAND monograph report series. The monograph/report was a product of RAND from 1993 to 2003. RAND monograph/reports presented major research findings that addressed the challenges facing the public and private sectors. They included executive summaries, technical documentation, and synthesis pieces.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.