Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Florida Supreme Court Adopts the Daubert Amendments
November 01, 2019
Originally published in the Hillsborough County Bar Association Lawyer Magazine.

The Florida Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, has receded from its prior decision not to adopt the Legislature’s Daubert amendments to the Evidence Code, and has now held that the Daubert standard for admission of expert testimony applies in Florida.1 

The Daubert amendments2 revised sections 90.702 (Testimony by experts) and 90.704 (Basis of opinion testimony by experts), Florida Statutes, to replace the Frye standard with the Daubert standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony.

In 2017, the Court declined to adopt the Daubert amendments, to the extent they are procedural, due to “grave constitutional concerns” raised by the Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee and commenters who supported the Committee’s recommendation that the Court not adopt the Daubert amendments.3 Those concerns included undermining the right to a jury trial and denying access to the courts.

In October 2018, in a 4-3 opinion, the Court found the Daubert amendments unconstitutional, reasoning that they infringe on the Court’s rulemaking authority. The Court determined that Frye, not Daubert, remained the standard in Florida for determining the admissibility of expert testimony.4

But just over seven months later, the Court receded from its 2017 decision, and adopted the Daubert amendments. In doing so, the Court cited Justice Polston’s 2017 dissenting opinion in which he observed that federal courts have routinely applied Daubert since 1993, a “majority [of] state jurisdictions adhere to the Daubert standard,” and “there are 36 states that have rejected Frye in favor of Daubert to some extent.” Justice Polston cited the advisory committee’s note to the 2000 amendment to Fed. R. Evid. 702 that “[a] review of the case law after Daubert shows that the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule,” and ultimately opined that the “grave constitutional concerns” regarding the Daubert standard were “unfounded.”

However, the Court did not decide the constitutional or other substantive concerns raised about the amendments, and specifically stated that those issues must be left for a proper case or controversy. So while Daubert is now the standard in Florida for determining the admissibility of expert testimony, further challenges may be on the horizon.

1 In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, 2019 WL 2219714 (Fla. May 23, 2019).

2Ch. 2013-107, §§ 1 and 2, Laws of Fla.

3 In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 210 So. 3d 1231 (Fla.2017), superseded by In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, 2019 WL 2219714 (Fla. May 23, 2019).

4 DeLisle v. Crane Co., et al, 258 So.3d 1219 (Fla.2018). See also Jaret J. Fuente & Monica L. Strady, Florida Florida Supreme Court Reaffirms that Frye is the Standard, HCBA Lawyer Magazine (Vol. 29, No. 4, March-April 2019).
Authored By
Image: Jaret J. Fuente
Jaret J. Fuente
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.