In the United States, the admissibility of expert evidence has been strictly controlled by the judge since the famous Daubert decision. What lessons can we draw from this decision, and how may they apply to the French judicial context?
The Daubert trilogy has had a profound impact on the procedures governing the admissibility of expert witness testimony in US judicial practice. Its significance raises the question of whether it could also benefit other jurisdictions such as France. Rather than the Daubert criteria, which have limited practical uses, it is the principle of assessing the quality of expert evidence, even before the assessment of its conclusions, that merits consideration. Should a similar approach be introduced in the French judicial context, the emerging set of principles would likely spark a virtuous cycle by compelling practitioners to take it into account while conducting their analyses. Combined with other best practices, such as increased reliance on oral testimony, this approach would strengthen the use of expert evidence in the French judicial context.