Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Case Summary

Expert testimony, when it is offered within a trial, is a crucial element in trials. When there is expert testimony offered there are steps that need to be taken to ensure that the person giving the testimony is an expert, as we saw in the case of the United States v. Paul (1999). However, there is a procedure to enter this testimony and to determine its admissibility. This matter will be discussed as we review the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). First there needs to be a little background on the case itself.
The case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) is one concerning children who were born with birth defects. Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were born with serious birth defects. They and

their parents sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a California state court.

They alleged that the birth defects had been caused by the mothers' ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription anti nausea drug marketed by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2012). Merrell Dow contended that Bendectin did not cause birth defects in humans and that the petitioners would be unable to come forward with any evidence to prove otherwise. To support this claim, Merrell Dow submitted an affidavit from Steven H. Lamm. Steven H. Lamm was a physician and an epidemiologist. He was well credentialed expert on the risks from exposure to various chemical substances. Doctor Lamm stated, in the affidavit, that he had reviewed all the literature on Bendectin and human birth defects. This involved more than 30 published studies of over 130,000 patients. He states that no study had found Bendectin to be a human teratogen, or a substance capable of causing malformations in fetuses (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2012). To rebut this testimonial evidence, the petitioners wanted to have eight of their own experts, who all had impressive credentials, submit their findings on Bendectin. They all concluded that tests that were done on animals, both live and in vitro, showed that there was

a link between the drug and malformations. The District Court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment. The court stated that scientific evidence is admissible only if the principle upon which it is based is sufficiently established to have general acceptance in the field to which it belongs. The court concluded that petitioners' evidence did not meet this standard (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2012). This was also affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court. The Supreme Court, However, decided to review the case.
The Supreme Court had to look at the case and determine the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial. The court looked at the test that was being used by the court at that time. The case was applied to the “Frye Test” which is a “general acceptance” test. This test had been the standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence. The court decided that the procedure that should be followed is in the Federal Rules of Evidence. The specific rule is Rule 702. Rule 702 states that A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Nothing in this rule mentions “general acceptance”.
Under Rule 702 the trial judge has a great responsibility and needs to not only consider Rule 702, but other Rules of Evidence as well. Some rules for the judge to consider are Rule 703, Rule 706, and Rule 403. Rule 703 provides that expert opinions based on otherwise inadmissible hearsay are to be admitted only if the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject. Rule 706 allows the court, at its discretion, to procure the assistance of an expert of its own choosing. Rule 403 permits the exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. The trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2012). There is a lot pressure placed on the judge at the time expert testimony is going to be considered. The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment of the Court of Appeals was to be vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings to be based upon the opinion of the court. This opinion being the use of Rule 702 and the other rules mentioned as a guide instead of the “general acceptance” rule.
Conclusion
As we have seen throughout this paper, the courts handle some pretty complex cases. Some cases require a lot of research on previous cases in order to help them decide a case. This is what was shown here. There were a lot of cases that went through the trial, then appeals, and ended up at either the State Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court. Each case required other cases to be looked at to help with a definitive ruling. Luckily when things get to the federal level, there are the standards set out by the FRE. The cases looked at covered expert witnesses, expert testimony, hearsay and the confrontation clause, competency, and best evidence. It seems as if everything pertaining to witnesses and evidence within the FRE was covered within just these five cases. The fact is, there are standards that need to be followed and these are found within your state rules of evidence, but most importantly they are found within the Federal Rules of Evidence.