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.
ATRA’s statement on passage of Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360
ATRA’s statement on Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360
ATRA President Tiger Joyce released the following statement in response to the unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol building on January 6:
ATRA voices its disappointment as Congress fails to include liability protections in its latest COVID-19 relief package.
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.
Activism in AG’s office, Supreme Court’s acceptance of lawsuit funding and loose venue rules to blame