Opinion ID: 1232054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: timing of daubert hearing

Text: Billy argues that it is improper to defer Daubert determinations until trial. Neb.Rev.Stat. §27-104 (Reissue 1995) provides: (1) Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the judge, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the judge shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition. (3) ... Hearings on other preliminary matters shall be so conducted when the interests of justice require, or when an accused is a witness, if he so requests. Section 27-104 is silent about the timing of a hearing to determine the admissibility of expert opinion testimony. Although we have not specifically addressed when a hearing may be held, we have indicated that a hearing before trial is not mandatory. When we adopted the Daubert standard, we noted that a court's decision about the admissibility of expert opinion evidence entails a preliminary assessment whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is valid and whether it can properly be applied to facts in issue. But we also stressed that in making this preliminary assessment, the trial judge has the discretion both to avoid unnecessary hearings and to require hearings when needed. Schafersman v. Agland Coop., 262 Neb. 215, 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001). Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that trial courts are entitled to broad discretion concerning Daubert hearings. See, Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999); General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). In addition, federal courts have determined that a Daubert hearing may be appropriate during trial. See, e.g., Club Car, Inc. v. Club Car (Quebec) Import, Inc., 362 F.3d 775 (11th Cir.2004); U.S. v. Alatorre, 222 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir.2000). In Alatorre, supra, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether a Daubert hearing must take place before trial. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has not mandated the form that an inquiry into relevance and reliability must take. Although the Court stated in Daubert that the inquiry is a preliminary one, to be made at the outset, the Ninth Circuit concluded that those terms did not mean that the inquiry must be made in a separate pretrial hearing. The court reasoned: The trial court must have the same kind of latitude in deciding how to test an expert's reliability, and to decide whether or when special briefing or other proceedings are needed to investigate reliability, as it enjoys when it decides whether or not that expert's relevant testimony is reliable.... Otherwise, the trial judge would lack the discretionary authority needed both to avoid unnecessary `reliability' proceedings in ordinary cases where the reliability of an expert's methods is properly taken for granted, and to require appropriate proceedings in the less usual or more complex cases where cause for questioning the expert's reliability arises. Alatorre, 222 F.3d at 1102. The court concluded that a pretrial hearing was not a requirement and was consistent with the court's broad discretion. The First Circuit has agreed, holding that a trial court has broad discretion in determining how to perform its gatekeeper function, and nothing prohibits it from hearing a Daubert motion during trial. Club Car, Inc., 362 F.3d at 780. We also agree that the trial court has the discretion to hold a Daubert hearing during trial when the need for one arises. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it held the Daubert hearing during trial.