Expert Evidence Reform: S.B. 187 (2011)
Adopts the Daubert standard and a later US Supreme Court
Adopts the Daubert standard and a later US Supreme Court decision, Joiner. Together these cases established a framework for admitting scientific expert testimony in order to preclude introduction of “junk science” into courtrooms. The federal three-part test for courts to use in determining whether to admit scientific expert testimony has been adopted in full and allows the courts to exclude unreliable testimony or even testimony that may draw from reliable procedures and principles, but whose conclusions are unsupportable. This permits the full breadth of Daubert and Joiner to now be applied in Alabama courtrooms as it is in all federal courtrooms and a majority of other states. The compromise that was reached in S.B. 187 does not adopt the Daubert progeny called Kumho, which extends these rules to non-scientific expert testimony. Also exempted were certain criminal and domestic relations cases. However, nothing precludes the courts in Alabama from later extending these rules to such testimony.
Latest News
View all news
Trial Lawyers’ Rush Amendment Passes IL House in Early Morning Hours, Heads to Governor
ATRA’s statement on passage of Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360
IL Lawmakers Rush to Amend Bill for Trial Lawyers’ Gain, Ignore COVID-19 Liability Protections
ATRA’s statement on Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360
Statement Concerning Violent Mob Attack on U.S. Capitol
ATRA President Tiger Joyce released the following statement in response to the unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol building on January 6:
Congress Fails to Protect Small Businesses & Others from COVID-19 Liability
ATRA voices its disappointment as Congress fails to include liability protections in its latest COVID-19 relief package.
Courts in ‘Judicial Hellholes’ Less Likely to Abide by SCOTUS Precedent
ATRA President Tiger Joyce writes in this op-ed about a growing trend of state courts bucking SCOTUS precedent when it comes to personal jurisdiction.
Minnesota Slides Into ‘Judicial Hellholes’ Ranks Yet Again
Activism in AG’s office, Supreme Court’s acceptance of lawsuit funding and loose venue rules to blame