#56 · 2026-10-01 · Case
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Answer: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence—not Frye—govern expert scientific testimony in federal courts and made trial judges gatekeepers under Rules 104(a) and 702, listing nonexclusive reliability factors. Later cases extended this screening to all expert testimony and adopted abuse-of-discretion appellate review.
Rule to remember
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), established that FRE 702—not Frye—controls expert scientific testimony in federal courts and assigns judges a reliability-and-relevance gatekeeping role.
Key elements and checks
- FRE, not Frye, provides the admissibility standard for scientific expert evidence.
- Gatekeeping: judge makes a Rule 104(a) preliminary assessment under Rule 702.
- Focus: methods and principles, not the expert's bottom-line conclusions.
- Nonexclusive factors: testability; peer review/publication; known or potential error rate and standards; general acceptance.
- Helpfulness: testimony must assist the trier of fact (Rule 702(a)).
- Burden: proponent must show, more likely than not, that Rule 702’s requirements are met.
In the source’s words
“under the Rules the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.”
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) | LII
“The inquiry is a flexible one, and its focus must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.”
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) | LII
State variation exists: many states have adopted Daubert-like standards, while some retain Frye or hybrids. In federal practice, Rule 702 (amended in 2023) clarifies the preponderance standard and reliable application requirement. Later Supreme Court cases extend the screening to all expert testimony and apply abuse-of-discretion review.