Opinion ID: 3000582
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Daubert Standard

Text: Ms. Jenkins also contends that Dr. Mainland’s testimony should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.4 Under the Daubert gatekeeping requirement, the district court has a duty to ensure that expert testimony offered under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is both relevant and reliable. See Kumho Tires Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999). The goal of Daubert is to assure that experts employ the same “intellectual rigor” in their courtroom testimony as would be employed by an expert in the relevant field. Id. at 152. Whether proposed expert testimony is sufficiently reliable under Rule 702 is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. See id. at 150. The fact-specific nature of the Daubert gatekeeping inquiry vests considerable latitude in the trial court, both in determining the method by which the reliability of the proposed expert testimony will be measured and whether the testimony is, in fact, reliable. Id. at 152. To ensure that the trial court has fulfilled its gatekeeping responsibility, while still affording it the necessary latitude to meet the circumstances of the case, we employ a twopart inquiry. Ammons v. Aramark Unif. Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 816 (7th Cir. 2004). First, we review de novo the district court’s application of the Daubert framework, i.e., whether the district court assessed the reliability and relevance of the proffered testimony. Id. If the district court properly applied the Daubert framework, we then review the district court’s ultimate decision to admit or to exclude the testimony for an abuse of discretion. Id. 4 Ms. Jenkins does not appear to challenge Dr. Jentzen’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. 12 No. 06-2495 Ms. Jenkins submits that Dr. Mainland’s opinion was not reliable because it was based on speculation. Prior to trial, Ms. Jenkins objected to Dr. Mainland’s testimony on the ground that it was “not rationally based,” “highly suggestive” and likely to confuse the jury; she offered no further explanation. R.125 at 6. At trial, Ms. Jenkins contended that Dr. Mainland’s opinion testimony based on Dr. Mainland’s reconstruction of the shooting was not reliable because Dr. Mainland had not done a “dimensionally analysis” as part of the reconstruction. R.203 at 3. Ms. Jenkins noted that, by Dr. Mainland’s own admission, Dr. Mainland did not know whether Officer Barlett had fired from the ground or from the hood of the vehicle. See id. at 4, 6. As a result, Ms. Jenkins submitted, Dr. Mainland’s opinion testimony was nothing more than “conjecture and speculation.” Id. at 6. In response, Officer Bartlett pointed to Dr. Mainland’s qualifications, her personal knowledge gained from conducting the autopsy of Mr. Jenkins and her investigation of the vehicle in which Mr. Jenkins was shot. Id. at 5. The district court noted that it had applied the Daubert analysis when it denied Ms. Jenkins’ pre-trial motion and again denied her motion. Id. at 6-7. The record makes clear that the district court directed its inquiry into the reliability of the proffered testimony.5 As the proponent of Dr. Mainland’s testimony, Officer Bartlett provided the court with ample grounds to find Dr. Mainland’s testimony reliable. Although, at trial, Ms. Jenkins identified what she believed to be shortcomings in Dr. Mainland’s reconstruction of the shooting, she did 5 Ms. Jenkins does not contend that Dr. Mainland’s testimony was not relevant. No. 06-2495 13 not explain how these alleged shortcomings would affect the reliability of Dr. Mainland’s conclusions. No attempt was made to show that the absence of these analyses caused Dr. Mainland’s investigation to fall below the level of intellectual rigor employed by an expert in the field. For example, although Ms. Jenkins seemed to find it significant that Dr. Mainland could not say whether Officer Bartlett had fired from the ground or from the hood of the car, Ms. Jenkins did not explain how such knowledge, or the lack thereof, would affect the reliability of Dr. Mainland’s opinion testimony. Ms. Jenkins simply made the unsupported and conclusory statement that lack of this knowledge rendered Dr. Mainland’s conclusions “conjecture and speculation.” Id. at 6. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the proposed testimony of Dr. Mainland was sufficiently reliable.