What does Rule 702 require for expert testimony?

What does Rule 702 require for expert testimony?

• A. It must be helpful to the trier of fact, based on sufficient facts or data, and the product of reliable principles and methods applied to the facts.
• B. It must be supported by a single case study.
• C. It must be admitted without cross-examination.
• D. It must be in writing only.

Answer: (A)

Rule 702 ensures that expert testimony is useful to the fact-finder and rests on a solid foundation. The opinion must be helpful in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue, and it must be grounded in sufficient facts or data. Moreover, the methods or principles the expert uses must be reliable, and those methods must be applied reliably to the facts of the case. This combination—helpfulness, a solid factual basis, and reliable methodology applied to the facts—captures what Rule 702 requires. Why this is best: it covers all three essential requirements in one statement—the testimony must aid the trier of fact, have enough data to support it, and rest on reliable principles that are properly applied to the case facts. The other options miss important aspects: relying on a single case study isn’t the standard, cross-examination is not barred by Rule 702, and testimony is not limited to writing.

Rule 702 ensures that expert testimony is useful to the fact-finder and rests on a solid foundation. The opinion must be helpful in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue, and it must be grounded in sufficient facts or data. Moreover, the methods or principles the expert uses must be reliable, and those methods must be applied reliably to the facts of the case. This combination—helpfulness, a solid factual basis, and reliable methodology applied to the facts—captures what Rule 702 requires.

Why this is best: it covers all three essential requirements in one statement—the testimony must aid the trier of fact, have enough data to support it, and rest on reliable principles that are properly applied to the case facts. The other options miss important aspects: relying on a single case study isn’t the standard, cross-examination is not barred by Rule 702, and testimony is not limited to writing.