Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureTortsEvidenceExpert TestimonyFederal Rule of Evidence 702Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a)scientific evidenceexpert testimony

Facts

Petitioners were children born with serious birth defects whose parents alleged the defects were caused by the mothers' ingestion of Bendectin during pregnancy. Merrell Dow moved for summary judgment and supported the motion with an expert affidavit stating that review of more than 30 published studies involving over 130,000 patients showed no study finding Bendectin to be a human teratogen. Petitioners did not dispute that characterization of the published epidemiological record, but offered eight experts who concluded Bendectin could cause birth defects based on animal studies, chemical-structure analyses, and reanalysis of previously published epidemiological studies. The lower courts excluded that evidence largely because it was not generally accepted, and in part because the reanalyses had not been published or peer reviewed.

Issue

Does the Frye general-acceptance test govern the admissibility of expert scientific testimony in federal trials after adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence? If not, what standard must federal trial judges apply under the Rules when deciding whether to admit scientific expert testimony?

Rule

Frye's general-acceptance test does not control the admissibility of expert scientific testimony in federal court because it was superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under Rule 702, the trial judge must act as a gatekeeper and ensure that proffered scientific expert testimony is both relevant and reliable: it must constitute scientific knowledge grounded in the methods and procedures of science and must assist the trier of fact by fitting the facts in issue. In making that preliminary Rule 104(a) determination, the court may consider factors such as whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, the existence of standards controlling its operation, and its degree of general acceptance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal products-liability trial in Denver, Nina Alvarez offers a toxicologist who developed a new laboratory assay suggesting that fumes from a sealant can damage lung tissue. The assay has been tested repeatedly, has a low documented error rate, and follows written operating standards, but only a small minority of toxicologists currently accept it because it is relatively new.

Which is the best ruling on admissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence?

Explanation. Rule 702 does not make general acceptance an absolute prerequisite in federal court. The trial judge must act as gatekeeper and determine under Rule 104(a) whether the proposed scientific testimony is reliable and relevant. General acceptance may bear on reliability, but it is not the exclusive test and not a necessary condition of admissibility. (Derived from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993).)