Which two cases significantly influence the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence?

The correct answer revolves around the cases of Daubert and Kumho, which have had a profound impact on the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly in relation to the admissibility of expert testimony.

The landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. established a new standard for assessing the reliability and relevance of expert witness testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge is responsible for ensuring that any scientific testimony or evidence admitted is both reliable and relevant. This case introduced the "Daubert standard," which includes considerations such as testing, peer review, error rates, and general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.

Following this, Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael expanded the Daubert standard beyond scientific testimony to include expert testimony from all fields, emphasizing that the same criteria should be applied to nonscientific expert evidence as well. This case underscored the judge's role as a gatekeeper in evaluating the relevance and reliability of any expert testimony before it is presented to a jury.

These two cases collectively provide the framework for how expert evidence is assessed by courts under the Federal Rules of Evidence, influencing both legal practice and standards in the field of forensic analysis and beyond.