Opinion ID: 1152623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: reliability and relevance of scientific evidence

Text: The issue we need to resolve is whether the trial court applied the correct standard in excluding expert testimony on the effectiveness of Prolastin augmentation therapy for AAT deficiency. Both the majority and the Court of Appeals agree the trial court erred by excluding the testimony under the Frye general acceptance standard because the evidence at issue was not novel. Majority at 307. Next, the majority finds that the admissibility of Dr. Fallat's testimony is governed by ER 702, but rejects the Court of Appeals reliance on Daubert in establishing a framework for applying ER 702. Majority at 306-08. In applying ER 702, the majority concludes Dr. Fallat's testimony as to the effectiveness of Prolastin augmentation therapy should have been admitted because he was a qualified expert, and his testimony would assist the jury in determining a fact at issue. [4] Majority at 308-09. This ends the majority's inquiry. The majority does not tell us how to determine the reliability of the evidence on which Dr. Fallat's testimony is based, even though it recognizes that such a reliability assessment is required by ER 702. Majority at 307-08. Under ER 104 and ER 702, the trial court acts as gatekeeper, assessing the reliability and relevance of all scientific evidence. Reese, 74 Wn. App. at 559; Daubert, 113 S.Ct. at 2795. A reliability assessment is also implicit in any determination of relevance under ER 402. When considering the admissibility of expert scientific testimony, ER 104(a) and ER 702 require a judge to determine (1) whether the expert is qualified to provide scientific testimony, (2) whether the proposed testimony constitutes scientific knowledge, and (3) whether the proposed testimony will assist the trier of fact in resolving an issue of fact. See Daubert, 113 S.Ct. at 2796. The majority completely fails to address this second step in its approach to applying ER 702. Majority at 308-09. However, it is this second step's determination of scientific knowledge that ensures the reliability and relevance of the expert testimony. The determination of scientific knowledge requires a two-prong inquiry: (1) whether it is more likely than not the expert's methodology and principles are reliable, and (2) whether those principles and methodology can properly be applied to the facts at issue. See Daubert, 113 S.Ct. at 2795-97. The Supreme Court listed four, nonexclusive factors for a trial court to examine in this two-prong reliability evaluation: testing; peer review and publication; known or potential error rate; and general acceptance. Daubert, 113 S.Ct. at 2796-97. This inquiry into scientific knowledge is required regardless of whether the offered scientific evidence is novel or not. Daubert, 113 S.Ct. at 2796 n. 11. In ignoring the two-prong inquiry into scientific knowledge required by ER 702 and noted above, the majority fails to offer a method to determine the underlying reliability of Dr. Fallat's testimony and whether the Prolastin studies upon which Dr. Fallat relied are in fact reliable. The better approach, and the one taken in Daubert and by the Court of Appeals, is to focus on the reliability of the evidence in all civil cases where the admissibility of scientific evidence is at issue. Under this approach, the general acceptance standard of Frye is not abandoned  its purpose and placement is merely changed. In criminal cases, it remains an initial, required, and dispositive inquiry. In civil cases, it becomes one of the nonexclusive factors a court may consider under ER 702 to determine whether proposed expert testimony is based on scientific knowledge, i.e., reliability and relevance. The majority explicitly tells us that it is declining the opportunity to adopt the reliability test from Daubert, but, at the same time, offers trial courts no alternatives for performing this necessary task. Because the Court of Appeals clearly sets forth standards for trial courts to determine the reliability of scientific evidence under ER 702, I would affirm its reasoning and analysis. SMITH, J., and UTTER, J. Pro Tem., concur with JOHNSON, J.