DAUBERT AND FRYE MODELS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY FOR NIGERIA

Abstract

In spite of the fact that there are many indices to consider when determining who an expert is, the ultimate question is whether the expert’s testimony will be admissible in court. The governing standards of expert witness admissibility are not uniform throughout the world. The two major governing standards can be found in two United States seminal cases, a D.C. Circuit case, Frye v United States1 and a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.2 . The federal court system exclusively follows Daubert while state courts are divided between the two. Interestingly, each state has taken on its own interpretation of these two benchmark cases, making the admissibility of expert testimony more variable between jurisdictions. Prior to trial – and ideally, prior to retaining your expert – it is critical to have a working understanding of these standards, their specific jurisdictional variations, and any recent, applicable case law. This study considers these options and sees in each element that can be adopted in Nigeria for more effective delivery of justice.