Florida Returns To Daubert Standard For Admission Of Expert Testimony

The ink was barely dry on Florida Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in DeLisle v. Crane Co., 2018 WL 5075302 (Fla., Oct. 15, 2018). That decision declared Florida’s § 90.702 — which adopted the Daubert standard for the admission of expert testimony — unconstitutional and returned the state to the Frye standard which had been around since 1922.

On May 23, 2019, the same Florida Supreme Court that adopted Frye flip-flopped in In re Amendments to Fla. Evidence Code, 2019 WL 2219714 (Fla. 2019) and returned Florida to the Daubert standard, where it will presumably stay.

A national tug-of-war regarding the rules and standards to be utilized in determining who is qualified to testify as an “expert” in a litigated case has been ongoing since 1993.

The use of so-called “junk science” in litigation had for years been a growing concern. The term became useful to describe scientific data, research, or analysis considered and opinions given by someone hired to be an expert witness in a case.

An entire cottage industry arose involving arguably unqualified experts, relying on questionable scientific evidence and techniques.