Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

11 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Admission of toxicology report on which pathologist relied was harmless error

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJanuary 27, 2014

    03 via the plurality opinion inWilliams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012). In the course of concluding that references by a state’s expert to an outside lab report didn’t violate the Confrontation Clause, the Williams plurality cited Federal Rule of Evidence 703 (the federal counterpart to § 907.03) for the proposition that the references to the outside lab report were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the report, but only to explain the basis for the expert’s opinion.

  2. Ninth Circuit

    Outten & Golden LLPPaul MollicaApril 5, 2011

    District court judge found commonality on the following: "(1) facts supporting the existence of company-wide policies and practices that, in part through their subjectivity, provide a potential conduit for discrimination; (2) expert opinions supporting the existence of company-wide policies and practices that likely include a culture of gender stereotyping; (3) expert statistical evidence of class-wide gender disparities attributable to discrimination; and (4) anecdotal evidence from class members throughout the country of discriminatory attitudes held or tolerated by management." District court did not abuse its discretion in admitting (over a FRE703 challenge) the expert testimony of Dr. Wiliam Bielby on "social framework analysis,"foundation for proving a corporate backdrop of gender stereotyping and bias, and statistical expert Dr. Richard Drogin, despite defendant's objections to his methodology. Court refrains from deciding whether FRE703 standards apply equally at the class-certification stage and at trial on the merits.

  3. Capital Defense Weekly, September 20, 2010

    Capital Defense NewsletterSeptember 19, 2010

    The failure of counsel, or experts, to uncover such abuse was not by itself IAC. Concurring, Silverman emphasizes the interplay between FRE 703 (experts) and evidence relied upon by the expert to render her opinion. In this case, the issue was whether the petitioner’s assertion of childhood abuse becomes evidence and part of the record.

  4. Capital Defense Weekly, September 13, 2010

    Capital Defense NewsletterSeptember 12, 2010

    The failure of counsel, or experts, to uncover such abuse was not by itself IAC. Concurring, Silverman emphasizes the interplay between FRE 703 (experts) and evidence relied upon by the expert to render her opinion. In this case, the issue was whether the petitioner’s assertion of childhood abuse becomes evidence and part of the record.

  5. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., No. 04-16688 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2010)

    Outten & Golden LLPApril 25, 2010

    6. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting (over a Fed. R. Evid. 703 challenge) the expert tesimony of Dr. Wiliam Bielby on "social framework analysis," the foundation for proving a corporate backdrop of gender stereotyping and bias. the majority likewise affirms the admission of a statistical expert, Dr. Richard Drogin, despite defendant's objections to his methodology.

  6. Expected Toxicity of Claimed Immunoconjugates Thwarts Showing of Prima Facie Obviousness (Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., (PTAB October 27, 2015))

    McDermott Will & EmeryKrista Vink VenegasMarch 9, 2016

    Additionally, the Board found dependent claims 6 and 8 relating to non-cleavable linkers non-obviousness for the reasons set forth above, in addition to prior art teaching the benefit of cleavable linkers and evidence of secondary inidicia of non-obviousness, including long-felt and unmet need, industry praise and commercial success of the purported commercial embodiment, Kadcycla®. With regarding to Phigenix evidentiary objections to the admission of Immunogen’s evidence of commercial success, the Board accepted the submission by Immunogen’s economist of voluminous data summaries relating to marketing and sales information for Kadcycla (consistent with Fed. R. Evid. 703), but also accepted certain paragraphs of the expert’s declaration objected to as hearsay “[b]ecause that Declaration corresponds to Mr. Jarosz’s direct testimony in this trial” (page 28). In December 2015, Phigenix filed a notice of appeal from the final decision including as the basis for appeal: the Board’s ruling that the challenged claims were not obvious under the preponderance of evidence standard and the Board’s denial of Phigenix’s motion to exclude evidence relating to commercial success.

  7. Seventh Circuit Takes on Dairy Parlors, Damages, and Dealerships

    Foley & Lardner LLPGregory HeinenJuly 9, 2015

    The court characterized the remainder of BouMatic’s appeal as a “blunderbuss of objections” to the damages calculations made by Tilstra’s expert witness, Rinaldo Sciannella. BouMatic objected that Sciannella had not attempted to verify Tilstra’s financial statements by engaging the help of outside accountants; the court responded that reliance on hearsay in financial statements is an accepted practice for management accountants under Federal Rule of Evidence 703. BouMatic objected as speculative to Sciannella’s assumption in his calculations that Tilstra’s dealership would have remained as valuable as its recent past; the court approved Sciannella’s calculation as a standard method of business valuation known as the “capitalized earnings” approach, where damages are the sum of the dealership’s discounted future earnings.

  8. Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.

    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPJeff T. WatsonApril 25, 2014

    ’” Id. at 52 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 703). The Court stated that any concern regarding potential bias was to be addressed by the weight given to the expert’s testimony, not its admissibility.

  9. 2013 Florida Legislative Session Recap

    Holland & Knight, LLPMay 22, 2013

    The bill amends s. 90.704, F.S., to prohibit the disclosure of inadmissible facts or data to a jury by the proponent of an expert opinion or by inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury's evaluation of the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. As a result of the amendments, the effect of s. 90.704, F.S., is conformed to the effect of Federal Rule of Evidence 703. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2013. SB 1792 — Medical Negligence Actions This bill clarifies a heathcare practitioner's or provider's right to legal counsel, authorizes a prospective defendant to interview a claimant's treating healthcare providers and revises the qualifications of experts authorized to testify in medical negligence actions against a specialist. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2013. Healthcare Practitioner or Provider Access to Legal Counsel Whether a healthcare practitioner or provider may consult with legal counsel before serving as a witness in a medical negligence action was made unclear as the result of Hasan v. Garvar, 108 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 2012).

  10. Fourth Circuit

    Outten & Golden LLPPaul MollicaApril 5, 2011

    Grounds: 1. District court did not abuse discretion by excluding (1) expert opinion by Dr. Bradley under FRE703 that used EEO categories instead of actual job categories; (2) draft Department of Energy report, excluded as hearsay that did not satisfy FRE803(8) because of lack of reliability. Plaintiff did not make out prima facie case because evidence of causation was excluded, study did not regress for relevant factors such as performance at interviews, experience and education.