In December of 2023, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended to clarify and emphasize the court’s gatekeeping role in deciding what expert testimony is permitted at trial. The amendment has since been adopted by several states around the country.

Dinsmore attorneys David Schaefer, Trent Spurlock and Jasmine Chenault-Diehlmann recently contributed to an important article published by the International Association of Defense Counsel highlighting the amended rule. The article is a circuit-by-circuit guide to federal court decisions that are arguably inconsistent with the newly amended rule.  The article’s goal is to help litigators and the courts correctly implement the laudable purposes of the amendment.

The three Dinsmore contributors reviewed cases out of the 6^th Circuit (Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan) that are arguably incompatible with Rule 702’s new language. They highlight instances in which courts in the 6th Circuit relied on outdated standards that placed too much responsibility on juries to assess expert testimony, whereas Rule 702 requires a more stringent preliminary assessment by the courts to ensure reliability and sufficiency.

You can read the full article here.