One of the most landmark controversies, in which the expert witness played a key role, was the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. case in 1993. This case was so important that it affected the outcome of the case itself and created the legal procedure known as the Daubert Standard regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses in the federal courts.
Case Background
In this case, the plaintiff – Jason Daubert and other minor children – claimed that they suffered from certain birth defects as a result of consuming an antinausea drug, Bendectin, produced by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The said link was based on scientific evidence provided by expert witnesses who linked the drug in question to adverse birth outcomes using epidemiology and other studies. Opposing the plaintiffs, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals summoned its experts, who asserted that there was no sufficient evidence from the scientific community to link Bendectin to birth defects.
Expert Witnesses and the Court’s Decision
The plaintiffs utilized unpublished, unauthored, and third-party documents, analyses of previously published articles, or studies of living subjects conducted by them to show that Bendectin caused birth defects. Merrell Dow’s experts, in contrast, referred to peer-reviewed and widely accepted medical research that showed the drug had no adverse birth outcomes associated with it.
On the whole, this district ruled for Merrell Dow, ruling instead for the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses under Frye’s rule, which permitted court access to scientific evidence only if it attained fray’s general acceptance in the community. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs pursued an appeal that some of the evidence they sought to adduce was based on scientific principles, which, although, were yet to be accepted by the general public.
THE SUPREME COURT RULING
The tumbrel did not hoist even to rule this annoying suit in favor of the plaintiffs, as it awarded them some victory. However, it issued a step away from the Frye standard in terms of the admissibility of testimony of the expert witnesses. It set the basis for the Daubert Standard in the land of courts. This standard requires that judges should wear a second hat, that of a “gatekeeper” in that they will be responsible for the conclusion admissibility of scientific expert testimony based on the following factors:
Impact
The famous Daubert case altered the approach and status of expert witnesses in American courts, requiring judges to be more involved in evaluating evidence presented by experts. When the Mulholland case was overturned in 1990, it marked the spectacular triumph of the Daubert Standard, which has ensured pure expert testimony before each trial, free from hearsay and assumptions.
This case demonstrates how expert testimony affected the result of the case at hand, changed the legal landscape, and created precedents for many more future cases where expert witnesses were used.
