Once again, the Federal Judicial Conference has merely tinkered with the machinery of evidence law, when what’s needed is a complete overhaul of the expert witness rules. In the process, the conference has shown itself too willing to bow to the Supreme Court and too reluctant to acknowledge 25-year-old design flaws.

The goal of the rule drafters should be to allow the unfettered admission of otherwise inadmissible background information that experts rely on to form their opinions. How can we expect jurors to properly weigh expert testimony if they can’t review all the evidence that supports those opinions?

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]