Kuhmo Tire Company: The Expansion of the Court's Role in Screening Every Aspect of Every Expert's Testimony at Every Stage of the Proceedings

Abstract

INTRODUCTION|The allocation of power between judge and jury has changed dramatically in recent years as a consequence of the Supreme Court's entry into the battle over the admissibility of expert testimony. Until recently, the balance of power rested with the jury who, in most cases, was vested with weighing the credibility of competing expert testimony. Foundational questions to expert testimony did arise, but with the exception of opinions resting upon truly novel theories or methodologies, which were excluded under the "generally accepted" Frye standard, most courts were inclined to admit most expert testimony. The rationale for the broad admission of expert testimony was the assumption that the jury could ferret out unreliable expert testimony, which has been subjected to a vigorous cross-examination, the presentation of contrary expert testimony, and an effective closing argument...