On Friday morning, I’ll be participating in a panel discussion at the Short Hills Hilton about whether New Jersey should adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and thereby become a “Daubert” reliability state w/r/t expert testimony. Here is a description of what we will be discussing
In three seminal cases, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., General Electric Co. v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co, Ltd., v. Carmichael, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted stricter standards for admissibility of expert testimony. A stringent form of the new standard was then codified into Federal Rule of Evidence 702. More than 30 states have since followed suit, adopting some version of the Daubert reliability test. New Jersey, however, remains one of a minority of states that has not yet updated its rules of evidence to reflect a Daubert-style reliability test. What has been the experience of Daubert and its progeny in federal court? What has been the impact of the inconsistent adoption of a Daubert reliability rule among the various state courts on trial practice? How do existing New Jersey rules of evidence and case law compare with the federal standard, and what would be the likely implications of updating the New Jersey rules to conform with the federal rule?
The discussion is sponsored by the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance, whose staff told me they would love to meet some Volokh Conspiracy readers there. It’s free, and CLE credit is pending. You can get more information and register here.