Tag: Florida Frye Rule

New Divorce Expert Witness Rule

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Many people know that in 2013 Florida passed a law which changed the divorce expert witness rule and how experts could testify in family law cases. A few people warned that the new law may be unconstitutional because of the way it passed. Fewer people know that in 2018 the Florida Supreme Court threw out the new rule. Even fewer people know that last week the court changed it all back.

Divorce Expert

The Frye Pan

People rely on all sorts of expert witnesses in divorce and family law cases, maybe more than most areas of law. Routinely, people will come to trial with accountants, psychologists, and other experts in tow.

Since 1923 courts have relied on the Frye Rule, which states that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is only admissible where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a new standard which requires trial judges to screen expert testimony for relevance and reliability. The “Daubert test” developed in three product liabilities cases. The plaintiffs tried to introduce expert testimony to prove products caused their damages. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately tightened the rules for admitting expert testimony

Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen

In 2013, the Florida Legislature amended the Florida Evidence Code to start following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daubert standard for the admission of expert testimony and the basis for an expert’s opinion.

I’ve written about the Constitutional problem with the way the legislature created the new law. When the legislature passes a law encroaching on courtroom practice and procedure, the laws are unconstitutional. However, the Legislature can enact substantive laws.

When one branch of government encroaches on another branch, Florida traditionally applies a “strict separation of powers doctrine.” Given that the Evidence Code contains both substantive and procedural provisions, there is a question whether the Legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine.

The Florida Evidence Code contains both substantive and procedural provisions, so there was a suspicion that the Legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine when it amended the code this way. At the time however, that issue has not been accepted by the Florida Supreme Court to date. The latest decision corrected that.

Frying Frye

The Florida Supreme Court, as part of its Constitutional rule-making authority has the power to adopt Legislative changes to the Evidence Code. As we saw before, the Court previously refused to adopt the Daubert amendments, to the extent that they are procedural, solely:

“due to the constitutional concerns raised” by the Committee members and people who opposed the amendments.”

This year, without re-addressing the correctness of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in DeLisle v. Crane Co, and after noting that DeLisle did not address the amendment to section 90.704 made by section 2 of chapter 2013-107, the Court chose to recede from its prior decision not to adopt the Legislature’s Daubert amendments.

The Court remarked that the Daubert standard has been routinely applied in federal courts since 1993, a majority of states adhere to Daubert, and caselaw after Daubert shows that the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.

Citing to Animal House, one of the dissenters to the majority opinion, newly appointed Justice, Robert J. Luck, poked fun at the High Court’s swift rule change:

Like the little-known codicil in the Faber College constitution, the concurring opinion cites section II.G.1. of our internal operating procedures, which provides that “the Court, on its own motion, may adopt or amend rules.” Id. (quoting Fla. S. Ct. Internal Op. Proc. II.G.1.). According to Westlaw, no court, including ours, has ever cited this language or any part of section II. Ever.

Effective immediately, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the amendments to section 90.702 as procedural rules of evidence, and adopted the amendment to section 90.704 to the extent it is procedural.

The Supreme Court opinion is available here.

 

New Divorce Expert Witness Rule

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Few people know that in 2013 Florida passed a law changing how divorce expert witnesses could testify in family law cases. Many people warned that the new law may be unconstitutional because of the way it passed, but waited for the Florida Supreme Court to decide. This week it did.

Divorce Expert

The Frye Pan

People rely on all sorts of expert witnesses in divorce and family law cases, maybe more than most areas of law. Routinely, people will come to trial with accountants, psychologists, and other experts in tow.

Since 1923 courts have relied on the Frye Rule, which states that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is only admissible where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a new standard which requires trial judges to screen expert testimony for relevance and reliability. The “Daubert test” developed in three product liabilities cases. The plaintiffs tried to introduce expert testimony to prove products caused their damages. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately tightened the rules for admitting expert testimony

Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen

In 2013, the Florida Legislature amended the Florida Evidence Code to start following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daubert standard for the admission of expert testimony and the basis for an expert’s opinion.

I’ve written about the Constitutional problem with the way the legislature created the new law. When the legislature passes a law encroaching on courtroom practice and procedure, the laws are unconstitutional. However, the Legislature can enact substantive laws.

When one branch of government encroaches on another branch, Florida traditionally applies a “strict separation of powers doctrine.” Given that the Evidence Code contains both substantive and procedural provisions, there is a question whether the Legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine.

The Florida Evidence Code contains both substantive and procedural provisions, so there was a suspicion that the Legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine when it amended the code this way. At the time however, that issue has not been accepted by the Florida Supreme Court to date. The latest decision corrected that.

Frying Daubert

This week, the Florida Supreme Court weighed in on the new evidence law and found it unconstitutional. This latest ruling turns back the clock on the Florida Evidence Code.

First, the Supreme Court said that the 2013 amendment was not substantive law because it didn’t create, define, or regulate a right, and solely regulated the action of litigants in court proceedings.

Second, the evidence code amendment conflicted with a rule of this Court, namely, the Frye rule as modified in Florida cases, which the Legislature can’t repeal by simple majority.

Finally, the Florida Supreme Court said it was concerned that the evidence code changes limited access to courts by imposing an additional burden on the courts:

With our decision today, we reaffirm that Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida courts.

The Supreme Court opinion is available here.

 

Florida’s Expert Witness Crucible

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Few people know that Florida passed a new law about expert witnesses a few years ago, which impacts divorce law. The Florida Supreme Court decided not to adopt the rule in its rule making process, waiting for a case in controversy instead. The case has arrived.

Florida’s Expert Witness Controversy

The Florida rule for expert witnesses was amended in 2013. There were some interesting things about the 2013 rule.

  1. The amendment was made by the Florida Legislature, not the Florida Supreme Court. That’s unusual because rule making authority is the court’s job.
  2. The way the Rule came into being by the Legislature created a constitutional challenge to the rule down the road.
  3. The new rule forced Florida courts to abandon the 70-year old Frye test for admitting expert testimony.
  4. The new rule required Florida courts to apply the Daubert standard, which is the standard applied in federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and a majority of states.
  5. The Florida Supreme Court has said it doesn’t favor the new rule.

I have written extensively about Florida’s problem with expert witnesses before, including the constitutional issues. The constitutional problems dealt with the way the law was passed.

Generally, legislation which encroaches on the Supreme Court’s power to regulate courtroom practice and procedure is unconstitutional, but the Legislature can enact substantive law.

When one branch of government encroaches on another branch, Florida traditionally applies a “strict separation of powers doctrine.”

Given that the Evidence Code contains both substantive and procedural provisions, there was an open question whether the Legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine.

The Florida Supreme Court Case

As the Florida Bar News reports, when the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt the legislative change to the expert witness rule, the panel said they wanted to address the issue in a case in conflict.

The court now has that case.

The Delisle case is a mesothelioma case in which the plaintiff argued he contracted the disease from smoking Kent cigarettes when they used asbestos in the filters, and from handling gaskets that contained asbestos when he worked at a paper mill.

The trial judge and the Fourth District Court of Appeal held – even though the Supreme Court had not passed on the Legislature’s amendment of the evidence code – the legislature’s expert witness rule must be presumed valid, meaning the Daubert standard should be used for expert witnesses.

The appellate court decided that under Daubert, the two experts should not have testified. The appellate opinion overturned the jury verdict and award Delisle had won in the trial court.

The Florida Supreme Court has not set a date for oral arguments.

The Florida Bar News article is here.

 

The Frye Test: Florida’s Newest Old Law

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Few people know that Florida passed a new law about expert witnesses which impacts family law. I published an article giving a little history about the new Florida statute, along with a warning that it may be unconstitutional.

I have also blogged about this problem before. The possible Constitutional problems dealt with the way the law was passed. Generally, legislation which encroaches on the Supreme Court’s power to regulate courtroom practice and procedure is unconstitutional, but the Legislature can enact substantive law.

When one branch of government encroaches on another branch, Florida traditionally applies a “strict separation of powers doctrine.” Given that the Evidence Code contains both substantive and procedural provisions, there is a question whether the Legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine.

The Florida Bar Board of Governors voted to reject the new rule, and keep the old rule announced in Frye. The Board voted 33-9 to reject Daubert, the new rule, accepting the recommendation of the Bar’s Code and Rules of Evidence Committee.

Yesterday the Florida Supreme Court weighed in on the Amendment, and declined to adopt it. While the Court did not address the constitutionality of the statute or proposed rule, it ruled that “the fact that there may be “grave concerns about the constitutionality of the amendment” has been a basis previously for the Court not adopting an amendment to the Evidence Code to the extent it is procedural.”

“Accordingly, having heard oral argument and carefully considered the Committee’s recommendation and the numerous comments both submitted to the Committee and filed with the Court, we decline to adopt the Daubert Amendment to the extent that it is procedural, due to the constitutional concerns raised, which must be left for a proper case or controversy”

The Supreme Court opinion is available here.