What does Rule 703 allow experts to do?

Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence indeed allows experts to base their opinions on facts or data that may not be admissible in court, as long as they are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field when forming their opinions. This provision enables experts to use their professional experience and the information available to them, including inadmissible evidence, to inform their opinions, provided that such reliance is standard in their field.

This flexibility ensures that the court benefits from expert insights even when certain evidence cannot be directly presented due to evidentiary rules. The primary aim is to permit experts to offer opinions that are relevant and helpful to the case, promoting a fuller understanding of technical matters by the court and the jury, while ensuring that the conclusions drawn are still rooted in a reliable methodology.

The other choices do not align with the provisions of Rule 703. For instance, the option suggesting that experts must base their opinions solely on proven scientific theories limits the broader applicability that experts can engage with in their assessments. Testifying only based on firsthand knowledge overlooks the use of relevant data that might not be directly admissible. Finally, providing general observations without specific evidence would not fulfill the necessary reliability and relevance standards that experts must meet according to