(3) the known or potential rate of error of the (4) the rate of error in the application of the technique or theory when applied; principle, theory, or method; (3) the expert testimony must be helpful to the trier of fact; and (4) the existence and maintenance of standards (5) the experience of the witness in the and controls; and application of the principle, theory, or (4) if the testimony involves a novel method; scientific theory, it must satisfy the – (5) whether the technique or theory has been standard. generally accepted in the scientific (6) the extent to which the principle or community.” method has gained acceptance within the All expert testimony must satisfy the relevant scientific, technical, or specialized first three parts of the Rule 702 test. Courts have also found other factors relevant in community; and determining whether expert testimony is It is only when the proponent offers sufficiently reliable to be considered by the trier (7) the extent to which the witness’s evidence that the “novel” “scientific” of fact. These factors include: specialized field of knowledge has gained fourth part of the test, the –Mack acceptance within the general scientific, standard, applies. (1) Whether experts are to testify ‘proposing technical, or specialized community. about matters growing naturally and directly When the standard applies, the –Mack out of research they have conducted proponent of scientific evidence independent of the litigation, or whether they must show that the evidence meets have developed their opinions expressly for two additional requirements: purposes of testifying’…; (1) the proponent must prove that the (2) Whether the expert has unjustifiably science generally accepted in the “is extrapolated from an accepted premise to an relevant scientific community”; and unfounded conclusion…; (2) the particular scientific evidence (3) Whether the expert has adequately must be shown to have foundational accounted for obvious alternative reliability.” explanations…; Under the standard, Frye– (4) Whether the expert being as careful as foundational reliability requires the ‘is he would be in his regular professional work proponent of a test to establish that outside his paid litigation consulting’…; the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular (5) Whether the field of expertise claimed by instance conformed to the procedure the expert is known to reach reliable results for necessary to ensure reliability. the type of opinion the expert would give….”
(3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and (5) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community.” Courts have also found other factors relevant in determining whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable to be considered by the trier of fact. These factors include: (1) Whether experts are ‘proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying’…; (2) Whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion…; (3) Whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations…; (4) Whether the expert ‘is being as careful as he would be in his regular professional work outside his paid litigation consulting’…; (5) Whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give….” (4) the rate of error in the application of the principle, theory, or method; (5) the experience of the witness in the application of the principle, theory, or method; (6) the extent to which the principle or method has gained acceptance within the relevant scientific, technical, or specialized community; and (7) the extent to which the witness’s specialized field of knowledge has gained acceptance within the general scientific, technical, or specialized community. (3) the expert testimony must be helpful to the trier of fact; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the – standard. All expert testimony must satisfy the first three parts of the Rule 702 test. It is only when the proponent offers “novel” “scientific” evidence that the fourth part of the test, the –Mack standard, applies. When the –Mack standard applies, the proponent of scientific evidence must show that the evidence meets two additional requirements: (1) the proponent must prove that the science “is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community”; and (2) the particular scientific evidence must be shown to have foundational reliability.” Under the Frye– standard, foundational reliability requires the proponent of a test to establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.