[4]

In connection with expert witnesses and evidence, the most significant has been the Daubert case of 1993. Prior to this case, federal and state court judges had only two standards on which to determine the admissibility of evidence. The first one was relevance and the other was known as Fyre standard according to which only scientific information, which was generally accepted by the community, would be admitted. Opponents of Fyre standard argued that there were still new and emerging ideas in science, which were legitimate but not yet accepted by everyone. However Fyre standard could not be removed since relevance alone could not determine the admissibility factor since there was always a risk of allowing junk science.

In Daubert, Supreme Court instructed the federal judges to act as "gatekeepers" and allow only the evidence which was both "relevant and reliable." [5] This was done to keep junk science out...
[ View Full Essay]