Expert Evidence Review: 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
Groups Urge Congressional Scrutiny of D.C. Attorney General’s Use of Private Attorneys
Concerns Mount Over Outside Counsel Contracts and Litigation Agendas
America’s $367 Billion Lawsuit Epidemic
The Hidden Tax Crushing Families and Businesses
$745 Million Verdict in Coastal Litigation Exemplifies Louisiana’s ‘Judicial Hellhole®’ Status
Excessive Litigation Costs Residents $1,011 Annually and Jeopardizes 40,000 Jobs Each Year
Alarming Expansion in Public Nuisance Litigation Revealed by ATRA Report
From Social Media to Car Thefts, New Litigation Trends Threaten Entire Industries
Georgia Legislature Passes Landmark Tort Reform Bill
ATRA Applauds Passage, Anticipates Governor’s Signature on SB 68
The trial lawyer playbook: How aggressive advertising and junk science are costing Californians
In 2024, legal services ads hit $164 million in LA, part of a 39% national rise, fueling aggressive marketing, third-party funding, and straining California’s economy and courts.