So say other state pols and lawyers, after Scott vetoed a bill that would have allowed children of undocumented aliens to obtain temporary Florida driver's licenses and dictated Daubert as the law of the land.
The driver's license bill had passed the state senate 36-0 and the state house 115-2, and the Herald reports here that Scott didn't object to the bill during the legislative session.
“Simply unconscionable,” said Sen. Darren Soto, D-Orlando. “It’s a[n] .... anti-Hispanic move."
Our Man Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte weighs in, as he represents a non-citizen with a temporary Florida driver’s license who has a law degree and has petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to be licensed to practice law. Sandy noted that Florida law expressly states that lack of citizenship cannot be a barrier to practicing any profession regulated by the state, such as medicine.
“Somebody in Florida who is not yet a citizen can get a doctor’s license but not a driver’s license,” D’Alemberte said. “How absurd can we be?”
Sandy, Sandy, Sandy: this is Florida! That's a rhetorical question, right?
And who would've known that Rick Scott has an opinion on whether Frye or Daubert should control the admissibility of expert witness testimony? Lobbyists for the business community, that's who.
The DBR reports that HB 7015 was supported by the business community primarily to do away with what it derided as "junk science" testimony in personal injury and malpractice litigation. However, it was opposed by civil plaintiffs attorneys and criminal prosecutors who maintained the change would bog down cases with needless hearings.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Florida was only one of 10 states (including Mexico, Texarkana, Alabama, and South Carolina) still using the Frye test, a standard established in 1923 that allowed
Like that guy in "My Cousin Vinny." IDENTICAL.
Some lawyers apparently prefer Frye over Daubert.
"Neal Roth, a partner in the Coral Gables personal injury firm of Grossman Roth, said, "What I expect is that defendants are going to regularly file motions challenging the validity of the experts' opinions."
MOTIONS!? REGULARLY?!? CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE OTHER SIDE'S EXPERTS!? THIS IS TERRIBLE!
"It's a total waste of judicial effort," Roth said. "There's a total misunderstanding of Daubert."
There is never enough wasted judicial effort, I always say.
See you back soon for the Third DCA Report.