Daubert reliability standard in Wisconsin

2020Evid. 702, Advisory Committee Notes14 to 1972 Proposed Rule 702)).15 ¶34 In 2000, Rule 702 was amended to codify the reliability standard articulated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny.16 In 2011, the Wisconsin legislature followed suit, renumbering Wis. Stat. § 907.02 to § 907.02(1) and amending it to expressly "adopt the Daubert reliability standard embodied in Federal Rule of 14 As Justice Shirley Abrahamson explained in Seifert: Under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 , the United States Supreme Court is authorized to promulgate rules of pra

2020See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (“We may decline to review issues inadequately briefed.”). ¶35 We reject the Flemings’ second argument because the Daubert standard requires “more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 .

2020See Seifert, 372 Wis. 2d 525, ¶55 (lead opinion). ¶36 The text of Wis. Stat. § 907.02 (1) permitting an expert to testify "in the form of an opinion or otherwise" remains unchanged by the addition of the Daubert reliability standard.

2020Seifert, 372 Wis. 2d 525, ¶51 (“The 2011 amendment to WIS.

2017See King v. King, 224 Wis. 2d 235, 248 , 590 N.W.2d 480 (1999) ("A circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion if it makes an error of law or neglects to base its decision upon facts in the record."); Hartung v. Hartung, 102 Wis. 2d 58, 66 , 306 N.W.2d 16 (1981): A discretionary determination . . . must demonstrably be made and based upon the facts appearing in the record[,] in reliance on the appropriate and applicable law[,] . . . and most importantly, a discretionary determination must be the product of a rational mental process by which the facts of record and law relied upon are st

2017See King v. King, 224 Wis. 2d 235, 248 , 590 N.W.2d 480 (1999) ("A circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion if it makes an error of law or neglects to base its decision upon facts in the record."); Hartung v. Hartung, 102 Wis. 2d 58, 66 , 306 N.W.2d 16 (1981): A discretionary determination . . . must demonstrably be made and based upon the facts appearing in the record[,] in reliance on the appropriate and applicable law[,] . . . and most importantly, a discretionary determination must be the product of a rational mental process by which the facts of record and law relied upon are st

2024WISCONSIN STAT. § 907.02, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony in Wisconsin, incorporates the Daubert reliability standard and assigns the circuit court a gatekeeping function to “ensure that the expert’s opinion is based on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the material issues.” State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, ¶¶17-18 , 356 Wis. 2d 796 , 854 N.W.2d 687 ; see also 2011 Wis. Act 2, § 34M. 6 See State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 8 Nos. 2022AP478-CR 2022AP479-CR ¶17 The circuit court allowed Teasdale to amend his postconviction motion, but th

2024WISCONSIN STAT. § 907.02, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony in Wisconsin, incorporates the Daubert reliability standard and assigns the circuit court a gatekeeping function to “ensure that the expert’s opinion is based on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the material issues.” State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, ¶¶17-18 , 356 Wis. 2d 796 , 854 N.W.2d 687 ; see also 2011 Wis. Act 2, § 34M. 6 See State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 8 Nos. 2022AP478-CR 2022AP479-CR ¶17 The circuit court allowed Teasdale to amend his postconviction motion, but th

2023Admissibility standards for expert testimony ¶16 In 2011, the Wisconsin legislature amended the standards governing the admissibility of expert testimony “to expressly ‘adopt the Daubert reliability standard embodied in Federal Rule of Evidence 702.’” Dobbs, 392 Wis. 2d 505, ¶34 (citation omitted); see also WIS.

2023STAT. § 907.02(1)” did not alter “Wisconsin’s long-standing practice of allowing expert exposition testimony.” See Dobbs, 392 Wis. 2d 505, ¶¶35, 42 .

2020See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (“We may decline to review issues inadequately briefed.”). ¶35 We reject the Flemings’ second argument because the Daubert standard requires “more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 .

2020See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (“We may decline to review issues inadequately briefed.”). ¶35 We reject the Flemings’ second argument because the Daubert standard requires “more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 .