What does Rule 702(d) stipulate regarding expert testimony?

Rule 702(d) focuses on the importance of relevance in expert testimony, which is critical to maintain the integrity and utility of the evidence presented in court. This rule stipulates that expert testimony must be directly relevant to the specific facts of the case being adjudicated. By establishing a direct connection between the expert's knowledge, skill, experience, or education and the issue at hand, the testimony becomes valuable in assisting the judge or jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.

Relevance is paramount because testimony that does not pertain to the case can lead to confusion, misinterpretation, and potentially unfair prejudice, undermining the judicial process. Therefore, experts must ensure that their contributions directly address the matters in dispute to be deemed permissible under the rule.

Other options, such as the inclusion of hearsay, universality of understanding, or personal anecdotes, do not align with the requirements of Rule 702(d). Hearsay is typically inadmissible due to its unreliable nature, while expert testimony does not need to be universally understood, as it often involves complex concepts. Personal anecdotes unrelated to the case can detract from the testimony's professionalism and relevance.