I've spent literally decades learning how to apply the relatively ancient (1923) Frye standard to expert testimony in state court.
Now come some whippersnappers (Big Business?) who want Florida courts to "get with the times" and adopt the newer (1995) federal Daubert standard.
But what will I do with all that "useless and pointless knowledge" -- I guess file it away right next to my 8-Tracks, cassette tapes, and broken VCR machines.
You can read the text of the bill here.
For an industry defense perspective go here; for a consumer perspective go here.
Personally, I love this quote from Joel Perwin:
"It's an attempt to make it much more difficult to get expert testimony before a jury. It takes decision-making away from the jury. It encourages tremendous judicial activism. It's ironic that these conservative legislators give judges all that power," he said.Oh well -- at least Daubert hearings come cheap!
Question -- should our state judges add to their workload and begin conducting complex and lengthy inquiries into highly technical or scientific matters where experts offer competing and contradictory testimony?
Don't they have enough on their (severely underfunded) plate?