William Moorhead said "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." @ PoliticalQuotes.com

On the recordMarch 6, 1995

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.

Said by

William Moorhead

Democratic · Pennsylvania

Source

govinfo.gov

Editor's note · Context

Discussing the intent to codify the Daubert decision regarding expert testimony standards.

Share on X Share on Facebook Email this quote