Opinion ID: 1536001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Standard of Review Weinberger and Carmichael

Text: The admission of expert witness testimony is provided for in Delaware Rule of Evidence 702. If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. D.R.E. 702. Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 is identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Respondents contend that the Court of Chancery erred by rejecting certain valuation opinions of both parties' experts. The seminal case on this Court's jurisprudence in an appraisal proceeding provides guidance on the admission of expert testimony. [14] Proof of value can be established by any techniques or methods that are generally acceptable in the financial community and otherwise admissible in court, subject only to our interpretation of 8 Del.C. § 262(h). [15] Since Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 is identical to its federal counterpart, we rely upon the United States Supreme Court's most recent authoritative interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Two weeks after the oral argument in this appeal, the United States Supreme Court expanded upon its construction of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 when it decided Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael. [16] In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., the United States Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 imposes a special obligation upon a trial judge to ensure that any and all scientific testimony... is not only relevant, but reliable. [17] In Carmichael, the Court held the basic gatekeeping obligation that had been described in Daubert applies to all expert testimony on scientific, technical or other specialized matters within the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. [18] In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court identified certain factors for the trial judge to consider in discharging his or her gatekeeping obligation e.g., testing, peer review, error rates, and `acceptability' in the relevant scientific community, some or all of which might prove helpful in determining the reliability of a particular scientific `theory or technique'. [19] In explaining that the ratio decidendi of Daubert extended to all expert testimony, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed Daubert 's description of the trial judge's Rule 702 inquiry as a flexible one. [20] The holding in Carmichael reiterated that the factors mentioned in Daubert do not constitute a definitive checklist or test but must be tied to the facts of a particular case. [21] The United States Supreme Court also held that the law grants the trial judge broad latitude to determine whether Daubert 's specific factors are, or are not, reasonable measures of reliability in a particular case. [22] Accordingly, an appellate court must apply an abuse of discretion standard when it reviews a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony. [23] The abuse of discretion standard applies on appeals when reviewing a trial judge's ruling on either the reliability of an expert's methodology or the reliability of an expert's ultimate conclusion. [24] Although this Court is not bound by the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of comparable federal rules of procedure or evidence, we hereby adopt the holdings of Daubert and Carmichael as the correct interpretation of Delaware Rule of Evidence 702.