id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-20646	Bradford, Cale J.	The First Twenty Years of Rule of Evidence 702 and the Current State of Expert Testimony in Indiana	2015	18	.pdf	application/pdf	6587	333	62	Coincidentally, the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark Federal Rule 702 case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., approximately six months before Indiana Rule 702 became effective.14 In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court determined that the Frye “general acceptance” standard for scientific expert testimony had been superseded by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence.15 After noting that Federal Rule 702 said nothing about “general acceptance,” the Daubert Court concluded that: Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, then, the trial judge must determine at the outset . . . The Indiana Supreme Court tackled the same question, in the context of Indiana Rule 702, four years later.33 In Malinski v. State, Malinski argued that certain non-scientific evidence was admitted against him erroneously because it did not satisfy the requirements of Daubert, which he contended were made applicable to all expert evidence by Kumho Tire.34 The Malinski court, however, declined to adopt Kumho’s reasoning, noting that Indiana Rule 702 required only that scientific expert testimony be found reliable and, again, that federal law regarding the Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding on the states.35 Overall, however, the effect of all of this, at least as far as the Indiana Supreme Court is concerned, is to allow in more expert testimony rather than 25.	cache/inlawrev-20646.pdf	txt/inlawrev-20646.txt