Opinion ID: 747742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of Admissibility for Expert Testimony

Text: 13 Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is the role of the trial judge to act as a gatekeeper to ensure that any and all expert testimony or evidence is not only relevant, but also reliable. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2794-95, 125 L.Ed.2d 469. (1993). The Rules of Evidence embody a strong and undeniable preference for admitting any evidence which has the potential for assisting the trier of fact. See Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 80 F.3d 777, 780 (3d Cir.1996). Rule 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, has a liberal policy of admissibility. See Holbrook, 80 F.3d at 780; Paoli, 35 F.3d at 741. 14 Rule 702 has three major requirements: (1) the proffered witness must be an expert; (2) the expert must testify about matters requiring scientific, technical or specialized knowledge; and (3) the expert's testimony must assist the trier of fact. See Paoli, 35 F.3d at 741-42. The issue of this appeal involves the second requirement of the expert's testimony. In interpreting this second requirement, we have concluded that an expert's testimony is admissible so long as the process or technique the expert used in formulating the opinion is reliable. Id. at 742 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 113 S.Ct. at 2794-95). In order for the expert testimony to be reliable, we have required that the testimony be based on the methods and procedures of science, rather than on subjective belief or unsupported speculation. Paoli, 35 F.3d at 744. Moreover, Daubert does not set up a test of which opinion has the best foundation, but rather whether any particular opinion is based on valid reasoning and reliable methodology. Admissibility decisions focus on the expert's methods and reasoning; credibility decisions arise after admissibility has been determined. See Paoli, 35 F.3d at 743-46. 15 There are several factors that a district court should take into account in evaluating whether a particular scientific methodology is reliable. See Paoli, 35 F.3d at 742. 6 Although these factors are neither exhaustive nor applicable in every case, they provide a convenient starting point for analyzing the opinion of Dr. Gerson. Our inquiry focuses on principles and methodology and not on the conclusions they generate. Id. at 744. The analysis of the conclusions themselves is for the trier of fact when the expert is subjected to cross-examination. Id. The Kannankerils needed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence only that Dr. Gerson's opinion was based on good grounds. Id.