Apr 19, 2022

Georgia General Assembly Passes HB 478: Establishes Daubert Evidentiary Standard in Georgia Criminal Cases

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 478 to extend the Daubert evidentiary standard for expert testimony in Georgia to criminal prosecutions. The move to adopt Daubert for criminal matters was motivated, in part, by the need for insightful discussion into the validity of expert testimony in criminal cases and the need for consistency across civil and criminal proceedings in Georgia.[1] Undoubtedly, the passage of HB 478 is timely and important. The benefits of this bill would upgrade Georgia’s criminal jurisprudence and make the State’s expert witness standards consistent. The Daubert standard (embodied in O.C.G.A. §… Read more

Sep 12, 2014

A Difficult Week for Expert Testimony in the Eleventh Circuit

This week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued two decisions reinforcing the high standard for admitting expert testimony in federal court. In Chapman v. Proctor & Gamble Distributing, LLC, Case No. 12-14502 (decided September 11, 2014), the Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the manufacturer of a denture adhesive in a products liability case. The plaintiff claimed that she suffered from a neurological condition allegedly resulting from the presence of zinc in the denture adhesive she had used for eight years. The plaintiff offered four experts to testify about the causal link between… Read more

Jun 13, 2013

Federal Appeals Court Finds Expert Testimony Improperly Excluded in Toxic Tort Suit

Dealing a major setback to defendants in a toxic chemical exposure lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the testimony of three expert witnesses for the plaintiffs was improperly excluded and that summary judgment for defendants was improperly granted.  (Whitlock v. Pepsi Americas, 9th Cir., No. 11-16958, 5/16/2013) In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed whether plaintiffs’ three experts, a chemist, a toxicologist and a physician, offered exposure and causation testimony to support the plaintiffs’ injury claims which was sufficiently reliable under federal evidence rules.  The claims at issue… Read more