Opinion ID: 777187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Standard for Admission of Expert Testimony.

Text: 36 Tidyman's argues that Dr. Polissar's testimony lacked probative value and prejudiced the jury. These arguments relate most directly to Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702. Rule 403 permits the exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Fed. R.Evid. 403. In applying Rule 403, [d]istrict courts enjoy `wide latitude'. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Alaskan Pride P'ship, 106 F.3d 1465, 1468 (9th Cir.1997). 37 Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. Fed.R.Evid. 702. Under Rule 702, expert testimony is admissible if the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Id. Whether testimony is helpful within the meaning of Rule 702 is in essence a relevancy inquiry. See Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55, 67 (2d Cir.1997) (Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant, and ergo, non-helpful.) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)). The trial court acts as gatekeeper and determines whether expert scientific testimony is sufficiently relevant and reliable to be admissible. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786. 38