NCJ Number
206749
Journal
Security Journal Volume: 17 Issue: 3 Dated: 2004 Pages: 21-29
Editor(s)
Bonnie S. Fisher,
Martin Gill
Date Published
2004
Length
9 pages
Annotation
This article discusses developments in the area of expert testimony in security-related cases and the implications of these developments, specifically the legal requirements on the admissibility of expert testimony under the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 resulting from two security-related court cases.
Abstract
Professionals who are educated or experienced in security matters are essential to providing a jury with the full picture in cases involving security-related issues. They provide an analysis of the premises or actions in question and assist trial attorneys in proving or disproving the legal elements of a negligence or premises liability case. However, in the last 10 years, the expert’s ability to testify to a jury on issues of security has come under question. This article focuses on the implications of recent developments in the jurisprudence of expert evidence in the area of security-related cases. In doing this, the article discusses a pair of cases: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael which resulted in attorneys and experts bound by strict guidelines regulating the admissibility of expert testimony. The article analyzes the three areas in which the security expert’s testimony may be excluded, failing to meet the legal requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702: qualifications, reliability, and relevancy. In security-related issues, success hinges on the expert’s ability to overcome the challenge presented by Rule 702 and the progeny of Daubert and Kumho. The expert must convince the trial judge that his/her opinion is based on objective fact. The expert must demonstrate for the trial judge that he/she is qualified and his/her opinion is reliable and relevant, hence the Daubert challenge. 10 Notes