What concept do the Daubert and Kumho cases collectively enhance in legal proceedings?

The Daubert and Kumho cases collectively enhance the evaluation of expert testimony based on relevancy and reliability. In the Daubert case, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth specific criteria that judges must use to determine whether expert testimony is both relevant to the case and reliable, thereby establishing a framework for the admissibility of scientific evidence in court. This ruling allows judges to act as gatekeepers, ensuring that any expert testimony presented is supported by sound scientific principles and methodologies.

Similarly, the Kumho case extended these principles beyond just scientific testimony to encompass all forms of expert testimony, reinforcing the necessity for such evidence to be relevant and reliably derived from a recognized discipline. This collective enhancement ensures that expert testimony meets rigorous standards, thereby promoting more informed decision-making in legal proceedings while filtering out questionable or unsupported claims. The focus on evaluating the quality of expert evidence is pivotal in upholding the integrity of the legal system.