Opinion ID: 1208799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Principles and Methodologies: A Matter of Admissibility or A Matter of Weight

Text: While the Supreme Court said in Daubert, that the focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate[;] 509 U.S. at 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786, it subsequently explained that this language did not create a strict dichotomy between methods and conclusions because `conclusions and methodology' are not entirely distinct from one another. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). [N]othing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.  Id. (emphasis added). In other words, trial courts may focus on the conclusions of the experts in determining whether the data actually supports the conclusion. Dick Thornsburgh, Junk-Science-the Lawyer's Ethical Responsibilities, 25 Fordham Urb. L.J. 449, 459 (1998). Since Daubert . . . parties relying on expert evidence have had notice of the exacting standards of reliability such evidence must meet. Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 455, 120 S.Ct. 1011, 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) (emphasis added). The law of evidence has long been viewed as the product of the jury system, i.e., the need to shelter untrained citizens from the temptation to accept uncritically that which may be unreliable and of doubtful credibility. 1 Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers, 1-9 (2d ed.2000). Thus, expert witnesses merit special attention because their testimony can be powerful and simultaneously very `misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it.' Douglas R. Richmond, Regulating Expert Testimony, 62 Mo. L.Rev. 485, 487 (1997) (citations omitted). In short, maintaining standards on the admissibility of expert testimony is particularly important considering the aura of authority experts often exude, which can lead juries to give more weight to their testimony. Elsayed Mukhtar v. California State Univ., 299 F.3d 1053, 1063-64 (9th Cir.2002).