BarbriSFCourseDetails
  • videocam On-Demand
  • signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
  • card_travel Class Action and Other Litigation
  • schedule 90 minutes

Reshaping Expert Witness Testimony Under Amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702

BarbriPdBannerMessage

About the Course

Introduction

This webinar will address how federal courts have interpreted and applied the amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which was amended last year to clarify that (1) the burden is on the proponent of expert testimony to establish admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence standard, and (2) a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case is required.

Description

Effective Dec. 1, 2023, the trial judge must act as a true gatekeeper. Before allowing the jury to hear expert testimony, the court must find that "more likely than not" all the requirements in FRE 702(a)-(d) have been met.

The use of lay witnesses to provide expert testimony under Rule 701 will be discussed, including the "camouflaged" expert seeking to circumvent Rule 702 and the expert witness disclosures.

Preparation of expert witnesses will be discussed, including the preparation of reports and programming a witness' testimony under ABA Formal Opinion 508.

Listen as our panel addresses how federal courts have interpreted and applied the amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Presented By

Anthony L. Cochran
Partner
Smith Gambrell Russell

Mr. Cochran is a Partner in the Litigation Practice of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP and Co-Leader of the White Collar, Government & Internal Investigations Practice. During the 45 years he has been practicing law in Atlanta, Mr. Cochran has represented many individuals and businesses on a wide variety of complex matters. He has tried dozens of jury trials in many areas of the law (both civil and criminal, federal and state), bench trials (in federal and state courts), administrative and regulatory hearings (before both federal and state agencies and boards), and medical peer review hearings at hospitals. Mr. Cochran's unique experience allows him to handle parallel civil, administrative and criminal proceedings, which are common in today’s legal environment. In 2005, he was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers. Mr. Cochran is consistently listed as being one of the “Top 10 Attorneys” in Georgia by Super Lawyers. He is listed in Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, under Business Litigation. Mr. Cochran is also listed annually in the publication The Best Lawyers in America® (Criminal Law) and in Atlanta Magazine’s compilation of the Best Lawyers in Atlanta (Criminal Law).

Jill Steinberg
Partner
Ballard Spahr LLP

Ms. Steinberg is a litigator with 15 years of experience handling high-profile white collar and violent crime matters for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Prior to joining Ballard Spahr, she served as a U.S. Attorney and in the senior leadership at DOJ in Washington.

Credit Information
  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Thursday, September 25, 2025

  • schedule

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

I. Historical perspective on expert testimony

II. 2023 Amendments

III. Scientific witnesses: assessing "reliable application of a principle or method"

IV. Non-scientific expert witnesses: pre- and post-amendment

V. Lay opinion witnesses: FRE 701 vs. FRE 702

VI. Stealth/camouflaged expert testimony

VII. Preparing expert witnesses for testimony

The panel will discuss these and other important issues: 

  • What is required to show it is more likely than not that expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case?
  • What issues arise when experts are offering emerging theories, e.g., query whether a technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community or is emerging? 
  • Can historically accepted evidence be challenged and excluded under the new standards, e.g., must all experts meet the Rule 702 threshold?
  • Are counsel tendering experts obligated to caution them about where their methodology and "expertise" ends in order to prevent ipse dixit and avoid an unreliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case?