Opinion ID: 741136
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: reliability of testimony

Text: 11 The Federal Rules of Evidence take a liberal approach in the admission of evidence. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588, 113 S.Ct. at 2794. Generally speaking, [a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, Fed.R.Evid. 402, and relevant evidence is defined as evidence that has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence ... more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401. Rule 702, which governs the admissibility of expert opinion testimony, states: If 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. Fed.R.Evid. 702. First, Rule 702 requires that the evidence assist the trier of fact, in other words, that it be relevant. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591, 113 S.Ct. at 2795-96. Second, it demands that the evidence be reliable. Id. at 590, 113 S.Ct. at 2795. The district court has the obligation to ensure that the testimony is reliable and will help the trier of fact. Rule 702 demands that expert testimony relate to scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, which does not include unsubstantiated speculation and subjective beliefs. Id. 12 Having considered all of Forney's testimony--his inability to dismiss various other possible causes of the tread-off, 1 his lack of knowledge about adhesion failures generally, and his inability satisfactorily to explain the reasoning behind his opinions, the district court found that Forney's testimony, whether scientific or technical in nature, was unsubstantiated and subjective, and therefore unreliable and inadmissible. Under Rule 702, the district judge found that Forney's opinions were speculative and would not assist the trier of fact, and we agree.