Yes, it is a correct interpretation of the committee's intent. The value of Daubert is that the Court spoke extensively about how rule 702 should be applied. In our report we make it very clear that we intend to codify Daubert and that we expect it to be further developed through case law. As the Department of Justice pointed out in its submission to the subcommittee, the Daubert decision is complex and cannot be easily distilled into a word or two of black letter law. That is why we did not just adopt the four standards set forth in Daubert. We intended to both codify and complement the standards established in Daubert. With the judge acting as the gatekeeper, section 3 is intended to prevent lawyers from taking advantage of the court system.
William Moorhead: “Yes, it is a correct interpretation of the committee's intent. The value of Daubert is that the Court spoke extensively…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the intent to codify the Daubert decision regarding expert testimony standards.
Share
More from William Moorhead
I obviously do not have any choice one way or the other in the operation of the House, but this is a good measure. It is something that will do good for the country. I appreciate very much the gentleman from New Mexico's support for what…
This is an unconscionable tax on innovation, a tax on American inventors for seeking to share with the American public the results of their creativity. This amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia proposes to take another $34…
Latitude in every single case where they have not found that it will work an injustice. We have in our legislation that we have, we have provisions in those extreme cases where the judge does have a latitude.
I just think, if the gentleman is not in favor of loser pays, of course he is not going to like this at all. But under the amendments that we have put into the bill, a lot of the sting of loser pays has been taken out already----





