Common Objections Chart, page 4
(including experts)
Motorola Inc., v. Murray,
147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, 509
U.S. 579 (1993)
In re Melton, 597 A.2d
892 (D.C. 1991)
In re L.L., 653 A.2d 873
(D.C. 1995)
In re Ca.S., 828 A.2d 184
(D.C. 2003)
Jones v. U.S., 990 A.2d
970 (D.C. 2010)
Gardner v. U.S., 999 A.2d
55 (D.C. 2010)
In re A.B., 999 A.2d 36
(D.C. 2010)
U.S. v. Williams, 212 F.3d
1305 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
See also FRE 701-702
In November of 2015, the DC Court of Appeals heard oral argument en banc in Motorola Inc. v.
Murray. This marked the first time the DC Court of Appeals has re-considered its use of the
Dyas/Frye test. The court considered whether to abandon the Dyas/Frye test in favor of
adopting standards for admissibility of expert evidence codified in FRE 702. As a focal point of
the opinion, the court discussed the standard for admissibility of expert witne
forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and mirrored in FRE
702. The court examined the vast application and use of the Daubert standard in other
jurisdictions, clarity, and simplicity as reasons for adopting FRE 702 as the standard for
assessing admissibility of expert testimony.
Expert opinions. Criteria for admitting expert testimony pursuant to FRE 702
1. The expert’s scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact
to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
2. The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
3. The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
4. The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Note: Statements relied on by experts may be admissible (even if hearsay) but only to show
basis of experts’ opinion (not for the truth of the matter asserted). [In re Ca.S.; Gardner v.
U.S.]
Note: Experts are permitted to rely on the opinion of another expert in formulating their opinion
when such reliance is reasonable in the experts’ particular field. [In re A.B.]
Note: A witness may be qualified as an expert even in the absence of academic training as
expertise may be predicated on experience. However, there must be a fit between the
experience and the testimony. The witness should be able to explain how that experience
leads to the conclusion reached, as well as why the experience is a sufficient basis for the
opinion and how the experience is reliably applied to the facts. [Jones v. U.S.]
Lay witnesses can give opinions/inferences only where the opinion is based on the witness’
perception of an event and is helpful to the jury in understanding the facts. Trial judges are
given broad discretion in admitting testimony of lay witnesses. [U.S. v. Williams]
To distinguish between lay and expert testimony, a court must look at the reasoning process by
which the witness reached his proffered opinion. [King v. U.S., 74 A.3d 678 (D.C. 2013)]
Fistere, Inc. v. Helz, 226
A.2d 578 (D.C. 1967)
The Parol Evidence Rule bars admission of extrinsic oral evidence that modifies/contradicts a
contract. Exceptions include: mistakes, incompleteness, ambiguities, and other uncertainties
on the contract.