In Daubert v. Merrell Dow, what were the two key factors the judge assessed for testimony?

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the judge focused on two crucial factors when assessing expert testimony: the relevancy and reliability of that testimony.

Relevancy concerns whether the expert's testimony can help the judge or jury understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. This involves evaluating whether the information presented is applicable and pertinent to the case at hand.

Reliability relates to the methodology and foundation of the expert's opinions and conclusions. The judge examines whether the techniques used by the expert are scientifically valid and whether they have been subjected to peer review, are widely accepted in the relevant scientific community, and produce consistent results.

By prioritizing these two aspects, the ruling in Daubert established a framework for the admission of expert testimony in legal proceedings that emphasizes both the significance and robustness of the evidence presented. This decision has influenced how courts evaluate the qualifications of expert witnesses and the scientific basis for their opinions.