Mock Trial 2025 Expert Case Law

Davis v. Adams

All scientific testimony or evidence admitted must be reliable as determined by the methods employed and data relied upon (not the conclusions). 

Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow

In assessing reliability under 702(c), judges should consider whether the theory/technique can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review/publication, whether it has a known error rate, and whether it has gained widespread acceptance in the field. This is not a definitive checklist, judges should rule based on the totality of the circumstances. 

Richards v. Mississippi BBQ

Otherwise inadmissible hearsay testified to by experts must be related to specialized knowledge on the expert’s part. Hearsay is admissible if it is used to come to an expert’s scientific conclusions, it is not if the expert is a conduit who simply repeats what they are told. 

State v. Richardson

It is not required to tender an expert before eliciting an opinion, so long as 702 requirements have been met. 

Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations

No trial by ambush—all opinions and conclusions given by experts on (re)direct examination must be contained within their reports. Includes conclusions, facts and data, and qualifications. 

Yu-Oh Industries v. Beckstein Alekri Inc. 

If an expert's conclusion is disclosed in their report, underlying details used to arrive at this conclusion may be admissible, even if they were not disclosed. Includes basic scientific facts known to lay people, known realities of the expert’s expertise, and underlying facts from a specific document that the expert referenced using in their report. 

Jefferies v. Polk County Police Department 

Law enforcement officials are not experts. However, a law enforcement officer’s opinion based on their general training, skills, and experience as a law enforcement officer is not subject to the standard of 702. Rather, it is subject to 701. 

Omnidirectional Solutions v. Little Bird Word LLC

The prongs outlined in Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow are not a rigid and unyielding standard for expert opinions. Rather, as long as the expert can sufficiently testify to their expertise, training, and method for review, the prongs of Tarot Readers shall not be used to prohibit otherwise credible and admissible opinions. 

rule 705

Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion – and give the reasons for it – without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.

prongs of 702

specialized knowledge, sufficient facts and data, methods, reliable application