TRY ME!
Expert Testimony Admissibility In Texas
Summary
In Texas family trials, expert testimony must meet criteria under Texas Rules of Evidence 702, including qualifications, relevance, and reliability. The experts qualifications are assessed based on knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The testimony should aid the jury in understanding evidence or determining facts. The methodology must be scientifically valid, with considerations like peer review, error rate, and general acceptance in the scientific community. If you have concerns about expert testimony in your case, consult a local attorney for guidance.Full Conversation
What is the relevance in this argument in a family trial for merits in front of a jury in texas "DR. DOEBBLER: Objection, your Honor. No
foundation has been set to show that he's ever done the
test like this that he's commenting on.
THE COURT: Your response?
MS. GOLDSBERRY: Judge, we proved him up as
an expert. I guess he's looking for me to formally
tender him as an expert in drug testing and chemical
dependency.
DR. DOEBBLER: He's been -- he's been put
forward as an expert on test results and drug screening,
not as an expert on test methodology or any of the
medical elements.
MS. GOLDSBERRY: Judge, methodology is
included in testing.
DR. DOEBBLER: May we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Bench conference, sotto voce)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MS. GOLDSBERRY: Firstly, again, raising a
standard that doesn't exist. Secondly, he's already
been testifying to all of this information. It would be
unnecessarily confusing to the jury to try to shut it
down now. Thirdly, he's highly qualified in all of
these areas.
DR. DOEBBLER: Your Honor, he's not highly
qualified in these areas. You need medical knowledge to
be able to reliably testify on that. They said he would
testify on drug screen results, not --
MS. GOLDSBERRY: That's what he's
testifying to.
DR. DOEBBLER: We believe he's testifying
to the actual process of drug testing.
MS. GOLDSBERRY: That's all included in
this. For them to try to come in and say they somehow
weren't aware of that is disingenuous."
Hi ****,
The relevance of this argument pertains to the admissibility of expert testimony:
- **Foundation for Expertise**: DR. DOEBBLER objects that the expert hasn't shown experience with the specific test methodology.
- **Scope of Expertise**: DR. DOEBBLER argues the expert is qualified on results, not on test methodologies or medical aspects.
- **Expert Qualification**: MS. GOLDSBERRY counters that the expert's qualifications cover the methodology.
Do you need more details on expert witness admissibility in Texas?
The relevance of this argument pertains to the admissibility of expert testimony:
- **Foundation for Expertise**: DR. DOEBBLER objects that the expert hasn't shown experience with the specific test methodology.
- **Scope of Expertise**: DR. DOEBBLER argues the expert is qualified on results, not on test methodologies or medical aspects.
- **Expert Qualification**: MS. GOLDSBERRY counters that the expert's qualifications cover the methodology.
Do you need more details on expert witness admissibility in Texas?
yes
In Texas, the admissibility of expert witness testimony follows the Texas Rules of Evidence, Rule *:
- **Qualifications**: The expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.
- **Relevance and Reliability**: The testimony must help the jury understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue and be based on sufficient facts or data.
- **Methodology**: The expert's methodology must be reliable and applied properly to the facts of the case.
Would you like more information on any specific aspect of these rules?
- **Qualifications**: The expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.
- **Relevance and Reliability**: The testimony must help the jury understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue and be based on sufficient facts or data.
- **Methodology**: The expert's methodology must be reliable and applied properly to the facts of the case.
Would you like more information on any specific aspect of these rules?
DR. DOEBBLER: I think there's a
difference, your Honor, between somebody testifying to
the results they received in his lab, which we certainly
admit that he can testify to, and somebody testifying to
how that process is carried out. That is carried out by
professionals with high level of training which he does
not have. A microbiologist or biologist undertakes
that. They are doctors, medical doctors, that undertake
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
that type of testing. You have to have that specialized
knowledge to be able to describe with any type of
reliability that testing process.
We're not objecting to him to say the tests
were positive or negative because he saw that when they
came back. But to describe that process, even if he
watched it, I think that's improper. I go to the rodeo
every year, but I'm not a cowboy.
MS. GOLDSBERRY: Judge, he has studied drug
testing his entire life. This is what he does. I
don't -- I don't know what other information I could get
out of him to show Mr. -- Dr. Doebbler that he's an
expert in these areas. He's testified to all of his
speeches and all of his awards and all of his work that
he's done his entire life.
MS. PROFFITT: I agree, your Honor. That's
what he's here for. He's here to tell us about the drug
test results, how they came about, why additional
testing was done, and what those results are.
DR. DOEBBLER: Your Honor, if everything
they say is true, his designation then was deficient.
MS. GOLDSBERRY: I don't believe that it is
deficient. I think the drug screen results includes the
testing that has been performed and an explanation of
the testing that has been performed.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
DR. DOEBBLER: It says the drug screen
results of the parties.
MS. GOLDSBERRY: These are the drug screen
results of the parties. It's a D and L isomer test that
her -- that his own client asked for.
DR. DOEBBLER: His testimony to the process
is not the results. That -- as I mentioned already,
that requires expert testimony from somebody with the
qualifications to be able undertake these tests and to
be able to evaluate them.
MS. PROFFITT: Ms. Goldsberry, does the --
does the litigation package speak more about all of
that?
MS. GOLDSBERRY: I don't --
THE COURT: What did you say?
MS. PROFFITT: I was asking if the
litigation package assisted with that information.
Because, if it did, I would like to not object and ask
the Court enter Respondent's Exhibit Number *, which is
the litigation package that was just asked not to be
admitted.
DR. DOEBBLER: That's still hearsay, your
Honor, plus that --
THE COURT: What are you asking for? What
are you asking, that he not be designated as an expert?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
DR. DOEBBLER: I'm asking that he only be
designated as an expert to testify on the process of
collecting samples. And, if they like, we will agree
that he can testify on indicating what the results are
that he gets back from the lab. But he should not
testify on any of the processes carried out by the lab.
MS. GOLDSBERRY: Judge, that is part of the
results of the test, is how it came to be.
THE COURT: Based on the prove-up of
Mr. Jefferies, the Court finds that he has the
knowledge, the skill, the experience, the training, and
the education to be designated as an expert witness
under Texas Rules of Evidence * for the purposes
indicated by Ms. Goldsberry.
The key points of the argument in your family trial are:
- **Foundation for Expertise**: DR. DOEBBLER argues the expert lacks specific training in test methodology.
- **Scope of Testimony**: DR. DOEBBLER contends the expert should only testify on test results, not methodologies.
- **Expert Qualification**: MS. GOLDSBERRY and the court believe the expert is qualified under Texas Rules of Evidence *.
Would you like more details on how expert qualifications are assessed in Texas?
- **Foundation for Expertise**: DR. DOEBBLER argues the expert lacks specific training in test methodology.
- **Scope of Testimony**: DR. DOEBBLER contends the expert should only testify on test results, not methodologies.
- **Expert Qualification**: MS. GOLDSBERRY and the court believe the expert is qualified under Texas Rules of Evidence *.
Would you like more details on how expert qualifications are assessed in Texas?
Texas Rules of Evidence *.
Under Texas Rules of Evidence *, the criteria for expert witness testimony include:
- **Qualifications**: The expert must be qualified through knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.
- **Helpfulness**: The testimony must help the jury understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.
- **Reliability**: The methodology used by the expert must be reliable and properly applied to the case.
Would you like to know more about the application of these criteria in court?
- **Qualifications**: The expert must be qualified through knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.
- **Helpfulness**: The testimony must help the jury understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.
- **Reliability**: The methodology used by the expert must be reliable and properly applied to the case.
Would you like to know more about the application of these criteria in court?
yes
To apply Texas Rules of Evidence * in court:
- **Qualifications**: The court assesses the expert's education, experience, and training.
- **Helpfulness**: The testimony must clarify issues for the jury.
- **Reliability**: The expert's methods are examined for scientific validity and proper application.
Would you like examples of court cases where these criteria were applied?
- **Qualifications**: The court assesses the expert's education, experience, and training.
- **Helpfulness**: The testimony must clarify issues for the jury.
- **Reliability**: The expert's methods are examined for scientific validity and proper application.
Would you like examples of court cases where these criteria were applied?
The expert's methods are examined for scientific validity and proper application.
Hi ****,
To assess the scientific validity and proper application of an expert's methods under Texas Rules of Evidence *, the court typically considers the following:
- **Peer Review and Publication**: Has the methodology been subjected to peer review and published in reputable journals?
- **Error Rate**: Is there a known or potential error rate associated with the method?
- **Standards and Controls**: Are there standards controlling the technique's operation?
- **General Acceptance**: Is the method generally accepted within the relevant scientific community?
Would you like more information on any of these criteria?
To assess the scientific validity and proper application of an expert's methods under Texas Rules of Evidence *, the court typically considers the following:
- **Peer Review and Publication**: Has the methodology been subjected to peer review and published in reputable journals?
- **Error Rate**: Is there a known or potential error rate associated with the method?
- **Standards and Controls**: Are there standards controlling the technique's operation?
- **General Acceptance**: Is the method generally accepted within the relevant scientific community?
Would you like more information on any of these criteria?
Start a new chat