{"id":8376,"date":"2023-10-27T20:48:37","date_gmt":"2023-10-27T20:48:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dsdtestsite.com\/?page_id=8376"},"modified":"2026-04-21T09:17:27","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T13:17:27","slug":"state-evidentiary-rule-reform","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/?page_id=8376","title":{"rendered":"State Evidentiary Rule Reform"},"content":{"rendered":"<section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_custom color_primary with_img parallax_fixed\"><div class=\"l-section-img\" role=\"img\" aria-label=\"Image\" data-img-width=\"1521\" data-img-height=\"761\" style=\"background-image: url(https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/header.webp);\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-overlay\" style=\"background:rgba(1,18,64,0.80)\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-separator size_medium\"><\/div><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_856474dc\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h1 style=\"text-align: center;\">State Evidentiary Rule Reform<\/h1>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_small\"><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_medium\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_custom width_custom color_alternate\" style=\"--site-content-width:1010px;\" id=\"intro\"><div class=\"l-section-overlay\" style=\"background:#f5f5f5\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"g-cols wpb_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:3rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><h2 class=\"w-text us_custom_dba4a858 has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">The Need for Reform in the States<\/span><\/span><\/h2><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_5bbb04e2\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p style=\"text-align: center;\">Initiatives to implement amended expert evidence admission standards in FRE 702 are accelerating, and efforts to secure aligned state rules are expanding in 2025. Working groups in over a dozen states are advocating for state expert evidence rule amendments, including new groups in Indiana and Tennessee. These initiatives will build on the adoption of amended rules in six jurisdictions in 2024.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">&#8220;We have rule amendment proposals filed in numerous states and state legislation is being pursued where necessary. We anticipate these initiatives, conducted in collaboration with state defense bar organizations, will help secure additional state rule amendments in 2025,\u201d said Leah Lorber, LCJ Expert Evidence Committee Co-Chair.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_auto\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-separator size_small\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_eb849559 height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><h2 class=\"w-text us_custom_dba4a858 has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">Progress By State<\/span><\/span><\/h2><div class=\"w-image us_custom_a18ca7eb align_center\"><div class=\"w-image-h\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"2560\" height=\"1735\" src=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/DSD-Map-4.10.26-1-scaled.png\" class=\"attachment-full size-full\" alt=\"\" loading=\"lazy\" srcset=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/DSD-Map-4.10.26-1-scaled.png 2560w, https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/DSD-Map-4.10.26-1-300x203.png 300w, https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/DSD-Map-4.10.26-1-1024x694.png 1024w, https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/DSD-Map-4.10.26-1-1536x1041.png 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px\" \/><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_14e19a50\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p style=\"text-align: center;\">Many states are moving towards adoption of rule reforms in alignment with the federal 702 amendment.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">Different states enact such changes in different ways \u2013 some through the judiciary and others through legislative action.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_auto\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs style_default switch_click accordion has_scrolling\" style=\"--sections-title-size:inherit\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_chevron cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section has_text_color\" id=\"ka70\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-ka70\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Arizona<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_1d36137b\" id=\"content-ka70\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The Arizona Supreme Court issued an order in August 2023 amending its expert evidence rule to conform with the anticipated amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 took effect on January 1, 2024.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.azcourts.gov\/rules\/Rule-Amendments-from-Recent-Rules-Agenda-s\">https:\/\/www.azcourts.gov\/rules\/Rule-Amendments-from-Recent-Rules-Agenda-s<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"wd26\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-wd26\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Alabama<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-wd26\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Alabama Rule of Evidence 702 tracks pre-amendment Federal Rule of Evidence 702.\u00a0 A rule change to ensure that Alabama\u2019s expert evidence rule continues to conform to the federal rule remains under consideration by the Alabama Supreme Court\u2019s Evidentiary Rules Committee.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"t0f8\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-t0f8\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Delaware<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-t0f8\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The Delaware Supreme Court in the\u00a0<em>In Re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation\u00a0<\/em>held that Delaware follows the standard for expert evidence admissibility set forth in amended FRE 702. The Court found that Rule 702 was \u201camended to clarify the rule without changing its substance\u201d and that 2023 amendments to the federal rule confirm that the \u201ctrial courts are required to vigorously exercise their gatekeeping function.\u201d The trial court, like other Delaware courts, cited incorrect standards which presumed the admissibility of expert testimony and allowed experts to testify without applying reliable scientific methodology to reach their conclusions. The Court wrote that \u201cDRE 702 has not been amended at the present time to mirror the 2023 amendments to FRE 702.\u00a0 But, because the [Federal] Advisory Committee has explained that the 2023 amendments \u2026 \u201conly clarified the existing federal standard, we view the committee\u2019s recent guidance as important material to consider in reviewing our trial courts\u2019 decision and providing guidance to litigants.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>LCJ\u2019s amicus brief in <em>In Re Zantac<\/em>, prepared by Raffi Melkonian, with Wright Close &amp; Barger LLP, urged the Delaware Supreme Court to interpret DRE 702 consistent with amended FRE 702 and addressed in detail the clarification to FRE 702 adopted by the Federal Courts.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/In-re-Zantac-Interlocutory-Appeal-Final.pdf\">Delaware Supreme Court decision<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/static1.squarespace.com\/static\/640b6c7e5b8934552d35ab05\/t\/670e8518724b6f541794c448\/1729004824271\/Zantac+D.I.+56+-+Motion+to+File+Amicus+Brief66.pdf\">LCJ amicus brief<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"a415\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-a415\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Florida<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-a415\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The Florida State Bar\u2019s Code and Rules of Evidence Committee (CREC) has approved a proposed amendment to the Florida Code of Evidence to bring the state\u2019s expert evidence rule more closely into alignment with FRE 702.\u00a0\u00a0The proposal amending Code of Evidence section 90.702 was presented on February 4<sup>th<\/sup> by committee member Katherine Mastrucci (Shook Hardy &amp; Bacon). The Florida Bar will now commence the process to bring the proposed amendment to the Florida legislature for consideration. \u00a0A Florida working group is actively supporting the rule change. If you are interested in supporting this effort or participating in the Florida working group, please contact Dan Steen at\u00a0<a href=\"mailto:dsteen@lfcj.com\">dsteen@lfcj.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"i70a\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-i70a\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Georgia<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-i70a\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>A change to Georgia\u2019s expert evidence admission standards to make them consistent with FRE 702 requires legislative action adopting the change. An amendment to Georgia Rule of Evidence is endorsed by the Georgia Defense Lawyers Association and a working group of Georgia lawyers continues to seek \u00a0an amendment to the state code of evidence. Please contact Dan Steen at <a href=\"mailto:dsteen@lfcj.com\">dsteen@lfcj.com<\/a> if you are interested in participating in the Georgia Working Group.<\/p>\n<p>While efforts on behalf of codification of the rule continue, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled in <em>Sterigencs U.S. v. Mutz<\/em> (2025) that Georgia\u2019s admission practices are largely aligned with federal standards:\u00a0 Georgia trial courts must act as gatekeepers and assess the reliability of proposed expert testimony; they must consider whether the expert\u2019s methodology is sufficiently reliable; and the proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden of establishing that reliability or the testimony will not be admitted.\u00a0 Lisa Baird, in her analysis in the Drug and Medical Device blog applauds the state court decision, \u201cto the extent it is has better aligned state practice with federal standards and reinforced the importance of rigorous judicial scrutiny of expert causation testimony.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"bf19\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-bf19\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Illinois<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-bf19\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>An Illinois Working Group advocates for statutory amendments to the Illinois expert evidence standard. Illinois Rule of Evidence 702 currently follows the \u201cFrye\u201d standard which permissively allows expert evidence to go before juries, For more details on how to participate in the working group, please contact LCJ Executive Director Dan Steen,\u00a0<a href=\"mailto:Dsteen@lfcj.com\">Dsteen@lfcj.com<\/a>, or Elizabeth Chiarello at Alston &amp; Bird, elizabeth.chiarello@alston.com<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"p507\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-p507\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Indiana<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-p507\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The Indiana Supreme Court has the authority to amend and rescind rules of practice and procedure and its Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure also serves as the State\u2019s Evidence Rules Review Committee.\u00a0 A working group, led by Joe Eaton (Barnes &amp; Thornburg) has been formed to prepare a proposed rule change to the Committee.\u00a0 If you are interested in participating in the working group to support the amendment, please contact Dan Steen at <a href=\"mailto:DSteen@lfcj.com\">DSteen@lfcj.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"na0b\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-na0b\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Kansas<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-na0b\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Kansas expert evidence legislation, unanimously adopted by the Kansas Senate and by House, was signed by Governor Laura Kelly on April 7, 2026. SB 398 amends Kansas\u2019s expert evidence rule to align with FRE 702. Kansas becomes the ninth jurisdiction to align its expert evidence rules with the federal expert evidence admissibility standards, joining Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, the US Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin.<\/p>\n<p>The legislative effort on behalf of the bill was led by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Kansas Chamber President Eric Stafford. The bill was supported by an array of legal and business organizations, including the Kansas Association of Defense Counsel (KADC), the Kansas Motor Carriers Association (KMCA), the Kansas Federation of Independent Business, the Kansas Association of Property and Casualty Insurance Companies Inc., and the Kansas Board of Indigent Services. For more information, contact LCJ Executive Director Dan Steen. Read the enrolled version of Kansas SB 398 <a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Kansas-2025-SB398-Enrolled.pdf\"><strong><u>here<\/u><\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"geac\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-geac\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Kentucky<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-geac\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The Kentucky Supreme Court approved an amendment to KRE 702 to align the state rule with amended FRE 702. The rule, attached <a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/KRE-702-amended-eff-7-1-24.pdf\">here<\/a>, became \u00a0effective on July 1, 2024.<\/p>\n<p>The Kentucky Supreme Court\u2019s action followed a public comment period, coinciding with mandated state legislature review.\u00a0 All comments received by the Court were in support.\u00a0\u00a0 The Kentucky Supreme Court also held a listening session on this and other rule changes at the Kentucky Bar Convention on May 9.<\/p>\n<p>David Schaefer, with Dinsmore &amp; Shohl in Louisville, made the initial presentation in support of amending KRE 702 in the summer of 2023 and led advocacy efforts leading to the adoption of the amendment.\u00a0 The Kentucky Defense Counsel, joined by the DRI, IADC, FDCC, ADTA, and LCJ, submitted a public comment on April 11, 2024, in support of the rule change. See the Comment\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/urldefense.proofpoint.com\/v2\/url?u=https-3A__dontsaydaubert.com_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2024_04_Comment-2Din-2Dsupport-2Dof-2Damending-2DKentucky-2DRule-2Dof-2DEvidence-2D702.pdf&amp;d=DwMF-g&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=Kw745qE9O6ar8sq22TTbC9eRhAXarI-hT9jyyDpK_Wo&amp;m=iCc0aABLX1wC7tma_LYsOishK2OsADQ5LCgxayhdV_ryvz5ceIWTyTMv-a0p7bo5&amp;s=we1H0f2LTqwQ-b-uArYmdzZghjJTiACEtZjGD-V9afU&amp;e=\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"k208\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-k208\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Louisiana<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-k208\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Louisiana adopted by statute an amendment to Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 702, to bring the state into alignment with Federal Rule of Evidence 702.\u00a0 The rule change became effective on August 1, 2024. View the text of the legislation <a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Louisiana-2024-SB16-Introduced.pdf\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Lloyd \u201cSonny\u201d Shields (Irwin Fritchie Urquhart Moore &amp; Daniels, LLC), a member of the Louisiana Law Institute Civil Procedure Committee, proposed the rule amendment to bring Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 702 into alignment with the amended federal rule. The Civil Procedure Committee recommended and the Louisiana Supreme Court approved the amendment. The rule change was referred to the Louisiana State Legislature for approval.\u00a0 Following consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill was adopted by the Louisiana Senate by a vote of 38-0. The Louisiana House passed SB 16 by a vote of 90-0. The bill implementing the amended expert evidence rule was signed into law by Louisiana\u2019s Governor on May 21.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"o65f\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-o65f\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Maryland<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-o65f\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The Maryland Supreme Court recognizes amended FRE 702 as an analog to Maryland Rule 5-702. The Court cites the commentary of the federal Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules accompanying the 2023 amendment to FRE 702 in support of its decision advising trial courts to exercise \u201cmeaningful gatekeeping as to an expert opinion\u2019s factual basis\u201d and use of the \u201cpreponderance standard\u201d in applying expert evidence \u201creliability requirements.\u201d Maryland recognizes that critical questions of the sufficiency of an expert\u2019s basis, and the application of the expert\u2019s methodology generally, go to admissibility and not weight.\u00a0<u>Katz, Abosch, Windesheim, Gershman &amp; Freedman, P.A. et al. v. Parkway Neuroscience and Spine Institute, LLC<\/u>, (Md. S.Ct., August 30, 2023).\u00a0 Although the Maryland Supreme Court recognizes the analogous federal rule, it has not yet adopted the amended federal rule language. In 2024, the Court declined, without comment, to implement the recommendation of Maryland\u2019s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to amend Rule 5-702. The Supreme Court\u2019s April 5, 2024 order is found <a href=\"https:\/\/urldefense.proofpoint.com\/v2\/url?u=https-3A__dontsaydaubert.com_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2024_04_Maryland-2DSupreme-2DCourt-2DOrder-2Don-2DProposed-2DAmendment-2Dto-2DRule-2D5-2D702-2DApril-2D5-2D2024.pdf&amp;d=DwMFAg&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=Kw745qE9O6ar8sq22TTbC9eRhAXarI-hT9jyyDpK_Wo&amp;m=x7VqDlhOhOlRtQEwKUM_P89-zSNUmoA1mIYNlWwjrj5jNxYugMnXzw8x-uXjO3KF&amp;s=7maB7Oj5Tajk5sC2YWciU9eJs1YgoqwBXuxlIRhbhws&amp;e=\">here<\/a>. LCJ\u2019s comment in support of the rule change, prepared by Mark Behrens and Chris Appel with Shook Hardy, can be found\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/urldefense.proofpoint.com\/v2\/url?u=https-3A__dontsaydaubert.com_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2024_03_LCJ-2Dcomment-2Din-2Dsupport-2Dof-2Damendment-2Dto-2DMRE-2D5-2D702.pdf&amp;d=DwMFAg&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=Kw745qE9O6ar8sq22TTbC9eRhAXarI-hT9jyyDpK_Wo&amp;m=x7VqDlhOhOlRtQEwKUM_P89-zSNUmoA1mIYNlWwjrj5jNxYugMnXzw8x-uXjO3KF&amp;s=NokDVFWVW_1o3XpFkS0k6iHnOYOHOhlqfTqH5MNC0gc&amp;e=\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section has_text_color\" id=\"la7d\" style=\"color:#333333;\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-la7d\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Michigan<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_95ebd667\" id=\"content-la7d\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The Michigan Supreme Court has adopted an amendment to Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 on expert evidence admissibility, which went into effect on May 1<sup>st<\/sup>,2024. You can read the order here:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.courts.michigan.gov\/49607b\/siteassets\/rules-instructions-administrative-orders\/proposed-and-recently-adopted-orders-on-admin-matters\/adopted-orders\/2022-30_2024-03-27_formor_amdmre702-804.pdf\">https:\/\/www.courts.michigan.gov\/49607b\/siteassets\/rules-instructions-administrative-orders\/proposed-and-recently-adopted-orders-on-admin-matters\/adopted-orders\/2022-30_2024-03-27_formor_amdmre702-804.pdf \u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Mary Massaron, of Plunkett Cooney, and Mark Behrens, of Shook Hardy, led advocacy efforts on behalf of the amended rule. Mary and Mark prepared and filed the linked public comment filed with the Michigan Supreme Court. Massaron and Behrens Comment on Proposed Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 Amendment<\/p>\n<p><em>January 31, 2024<\/em><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Massaron-and-Behrens-Comment-on-Proposed-Michigan-Rule-of-Evidence-702.pdf\">View Comment Letter<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"p0a2\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-p0a2\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Mississippi<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-p0a2\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 is aligned with federal evidentiary standards on expert evidence. A proposed amendment to MRE 702 is now pending which would maintain the consistency between the state rule and FRE 702.\u00a0 The Mississippi Supreme Court has referred the proposed rule change to its Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure for research and a recommendation.<\/p>\n<p>The amendment was proposed in a letter by Chris Maddux, William Gage, Rod Richmond, Tim Threadgill, and Phillip Sykes, all with the Butler Snow firm, which highlights that \u201cMississippi \u2026 has followed the federal standards for the admissibility of expert witness testimony for more than 20 years.\u201d The Butler Snow lawyers argue the \u201cchanges are critical to ensuring that courts fulfill their gatekeeping obligations.\u201d To read the full letter, click\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/urldefense.proofpoint.com\/v2\/url?u=https-3A__dontsaydaubert.com_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2024_09_Letter-2Dto-2Dthe-2DMS-2DAdvisory-2DComm-2Don-2DRules-2Don-2DMRE-2D702-2Damendment-2DSeptember-2D6-2D2024.pdf&amp;d=DwMFAg&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=Kw745qE9O6ar8sq22TTbC9eRhAXarI-hT9jyyDpK_Wo&amp;m=Ux2-ehk8dZT2fNdcyK0y9Hg_r7Q1Q_acAdB-soBn7xl5lnpVcSZ2BQG09mdoycAg&amp;s=Scad7QcoaLhjKJ9_-662f1WYZrPVXwp_cSieKi7XBW0&amp;e=\">here<\/a>. For more information, contact William Gage at\u00a0<a href=\"mailto:William.Gage@butlersnow.com\">William.Gage@butlersnow.com<\/a>\u00a0or Dan Steen at\u00a0<a href=\"mailto:DSteen@lfcj.com\">DSteen@lfcj.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"d77c\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-d77c\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Missouri<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-d77c\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Missouri legislation would bring the language of the state\u2019s expert evidence admission standards into alignment with amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which clarifies that it is the role of trial courts to evaluate expert testimony before it is admitted in a case. House Bill 2255 introduced by Rep. Barry Hovis, and\u00a0Senate Bill 918, introduced by Senator Jamie Burger, clarify that under Missouri law, the proponent of expert evidence has the burden of proving admissibility and the judge in a case should evaluate the reliability and appropriateness of any expert testimony before it is put before a jury. \u00a0The legislation was reported by the Senate General Laws Committee after receiving a \u00a0a favorable reception in the Senate Committee in 2025.<\/p>\n<p>The Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers (MODL) is leading state efforts on behalf of the bill. MODL has been joined by a growing group of bar, business, and civic organizations in advocating for the legislation. Mark Dunn, with Osborn Hine &amp; Yates, leads the LCJ state working group which developed the proposed rule change, and which continuing its work to educate legislators.<\/p>\n<p>Separately, the Missouri Supreme Court is now considering an appeal which addresses the admission requirements for expert testimony under the state\u2019s\u00a0<em>current<\/em>\u00a0expert evidence rule. \u00a0Lawyers for Civil Justice filed an amicus brief in\u00a0<u>Hanshaw v. Crown Equipment Corporation<\/u>\u00a0which urges the Court to affirm that the state\u2019s current expert evidence rule has the same admissibility requirements as those stated in FRE 702, which was recently amended to clarify that trial courts have the responsibility for evaluating proffered expert evidence for admissibility.\u00a0 In its brief, LCJ cites the Delaware Supreme Court\u2019s decision in the\u00a0<u>In Re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation<\/u>, which held that FRE 702 was \u201camended to clarify the rule without changing its substance.\u201d LCJ\u2019s brief can be found <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/static1.squarespace.com\/static\/640b6c7e5b8934552d35ab05\/t\/670e8518724b6f541794c448\/1729004824271\/Zantac+D.I.+56+-+Motion+to+File+Amicus+Brief66.pdf\">here<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For more information on the continuing legislative effort, contact Brian Bernskoetter, with RJ Scherr &amp; Associates, or Mark Dunn.\u00a0 If you are interested in joining the advocacy initiative in Missouri or those of other states, contact Dan Steen at\u00a0<a href=\"mailto:DSteen@lfcj.com\">DSteen@lfcj.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"yb68\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-yb68\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">New Jersey<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-yb68\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>New Jersey\u2019s Supreme Court is set to consider an amendment bringing the state\u2019s expert evidence admissibility standard into line with the federal rule, following a 16-7 decision by a divided state Rules of Evidence Committee to reject the rule change. Following the decision of the Rules of Evidence Committee, the New Jersey Defense Association filed a \u201cComment\u201d on the New Jersey Rules of Evidence Committee decision on April 17th, asking the Supreme Court to adopt the amended rule and requesting the opportunity to participate it in a Supreme Court hearing on May 19th. The new comment is available <a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Comment-on-the-Mid-Year-Report-of-the-Comittee-on-Rules-of-Evidence.pdf\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The New Jersey Defense Association originally requested an amendment to New Jersey Rule of Evidence 702 in 2024, seeking to clarify existing New Jersey law on admissibility of expert testimony and the gatekeeping role of judges and to align the state rule with the federal rule. The letter,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/NJDA-Letter-Supporting-Proposed-Amendment-to-NJRE-702.Signed.pdf\">here<\/a>, was filed with the New Jersey Rules of Evidence Committee, and asked for the formation of a subcommittee to consider the proposed amendment.<\/p>\n<p>A state working group formed in support of the amendment is working with the NJDA and helps lead the advocacy efforts of Lawyers for Civil Justice on this issue. <strong>Tim Freeman<\/strong> (Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP) authored the original rule change proposal and the new NJDA Comment filed with the Supreme Court. <strong>Joe Braunreuther<\/strong> and <strong>David Kott<\/strong> (McCarter &amp; English) are helping guide strategy and ally outreach on the amendment.<\/p>\n<p>If you are interested in participating in the comments to the New Jersey Supreme Court, please contact Tim, Joe, or David, or LCJ Executive Director Dan Steen. Comments are due by April 30th.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"l0a0\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-l0a0\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">North Carolina<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-l0a0\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>North Carolina Supreme Court decisions have followed the prior federal rule.\u00a0 A working group has been formed in support of rule amendment.\u00a0 Please contact LCJ Executive Director Dan Steen,\u00a0<a href=\"mailto:Dsteen@lfcj.com\">Dsteen@lfcj.com<\/a>, or Aulica Monroe, with Womble Bond Dickinson,\u00a0<a href=\"mailto:Aulica.monroe@wbd-us.com\">Aulica.monroe@wbd-us.com<\/a>, for more information.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section has_text_color\" id=\"z4aa\" style=\"color:#333333;\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-z4aa\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Ohio<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_95ebd667\" id=\"content-z4aa\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The Ohio Supreme Court adopted a proposed amendment to the Ohio Rule of Evidence 702 bringing it into conformity with FRE 702, effective on July 1, 2024. \u00a0The approval of the amended rule followed two comment periods running from September 2023. The rule amendment proposal is found <a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Ohio-Practice-Procedure-Proposals.pdf\"><u>here<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Jim McCrystal (Sutter O\u2019Connell) led advocacy efforts in support of the rule change and numerous organizations filed in support of the rule amendment. Mark Behrens (Shook Hardy) led advocacy efforts on behalf of national organizations supporting the rule.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section has_text_color\" id=\"j7c4\" style=\"color:#333333;\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-j7c4\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Oklahoma<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_95ebd667\" id=\"content-j7c4\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Governor Kevin Stitt signed legislation adopting Rule 702 amendments on May 27, 2025. \u00a0The change to the state code became effective on September 1, 2025.<\/p>\n<p>Legislation to amend Oklahoma\u2019s expert evidence admission rules to align with amended FRE 702,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/urldefense.proofpoint.com\/v2\/url?u=https-3A__dontsaydaubert.com_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2025_02_Oklahoma-2DHB-2D2628-2Dintroduced.pdf&amp;d=DwMFAg&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=Z_xp0Y779vlSdgzJhyncoE1BANau7_0yLdqAHeKbQuk&amp;m=SN4ooFJySnRyfRtOMonuqXpS-khqfyIkyiDB-NHeZZCwSbDowLrM2A5VBNMaMv2W&amp;s=nQYgxgQOe5rM-VN-IVD8yit5FGoxpfL36LdHbpzk7g0&amp;e=\">House Bill 2628<\/a>,\u00a0was originally introduced by House Assistant Majority Whip Erick Harris (Edmond), and was reported by \u00a0the House Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight by a unanimous and bipartisan 9-0 vote.\u00a0 The bill language was included in SB 453, as part of a broader group of civil litigation reforms.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"i9e5\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-i9e5\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Pennsylvania<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-i9e5\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>A working group has been formed to consider Pennsylvania\u2019s expert evidence admission standards. If you are interested in participating in the working group, please contact LCJ Executive Director Dan Steen at Dsteen@lfcj.com, or FDCC President Bernie Heinze at bernie@thefederation.org.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"jd0f\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-jd0f\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">South Dakota<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-jd0f\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The South Dakota Supreme Court amended the state\u2019s expert evidence rule to align with amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702, effective on March 31, 2026. <em>See <\/em>In the Matter of the Amendment to SDCL 19-19-702 (S.D. 2026), <u><a href=\"https:\/\/urldefense.proofpoint.com\/v2\/url?u=https-3A__ujs.sd.gov_media_5vbbqzrw_rule2604.pdf&amp;d=DwMFAg&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=zVQor5p1azbnCZsIAdG5MpnZEtWbb8yNG3Qfwk57rZs&amp;m=yLOBrHdOgJlOXumv7rzwAZvlofazOLUDKd-GUSBf5xtNVn16s53Q5-qYJMIjLdEn&amp;s=K7JQepj4Ues_ZgBxicSpZ0w5-yykStDLbINjTAsVc8M&amp;e=\">https:\/\/ujs.sd.gov\/media\/5vbbqzrw\/rule2604.pdf<\/a><\/u>.<\/p>\n<p>The amendment was proposed by the South Dakota State Bar\u2019s Evidence Committee. In June 2025, State Bar members voted to submit the rule change to the South Dakota Supreme Court for consideration. <em>See<\/em> In the Matter of the Amendment to SDCL 19-19-702, Notice of Rules Hearing, No. 158 &#8211; Feb. 11, 2026 (S.D. Jan. 7, 2026), <u><a href=\"https:\/\/urldefense.proofpoint.com\/v2\/url?u=https-3A__ujs.sd.gov_media_0yylb3sj_notice-2Dwith-2Dattachments-2D158.pdf&amp;d=DwMFAg&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=zVQor5p1azbnCZsIAdG5MpnZEtWbb8yNG3Qfwk57rZs&amp;m=yLOBrHdOgJlOXumv7rzwAZvlofazOLUDKd-GUSBf5xtNVn16s53Q5-qYJMIjLdEn&amp;s=BRrne4IUFbPn__w5WwNdDOdUuFfu-HkN9f9n1W2HfUs&amp;e=\">https:\/\/ujs.sd.gov\/media\/0yylb3sj\/notice-with-attachments-158.pdf<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"a092\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-a092\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Tennessee<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-a092\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>An amendment to bring Tennessee\u2019s expert evidence admission rules into alignment with FRE 702, the Sixth Circuit, and other states in the Southeast, has been proposed to the Tennessee Bar Association. Butler Snow and several other prominent Tennessee law firms, including Baker Donelson, Hickman Goza &amp; Spragins, Gordon Rees Scully Manshukhani, and the law office of Michael T. Goodin, have requested endorsement by the Tennessee Bar Association of an amendment to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 702, noting that Tennessee precedent is consistent with a rule change and it is timely for Tennessee to adopt rule language aligned with Federal Rule 702. Read the letter <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Law-Firm-Letter-to-Tennessee-Bar-Association-on-TRE-702-December-19-2025.pdf\"><u>here<\/u><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The importance of an amendment clarifying TRE 702 was highlighted in a recent article in The Journal of the Tennessee Defense Lawyers Association by Brendon Pashia, an attorney with the Nashville office of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani. <a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/TRE-702-article-TDLA-Journal-Winter-2025-1.pdf\">Read the article here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>A working group is active in support of an amendment to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 702.\u00a0LCJ is working with the Tennessee Defense Lawyers Association, which is leading efforts on the bill, and other organizations.\u00a0 If you are interested in participating in this effort, contact Eric Hudson at Butler Snow, or LFCJ Executive Director Dan Steen at\u00a0<a href=\"mailto:DSteen@lfcj.com\">DSteen@lfcj.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"d323\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-d323\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Virgin Islands<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-d323\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Following a recommendation from its advisory committee on rules, the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands, in an order filed on July 14, 2023, amended Virgin Islands Rule of Evidence 702 to align with Federal Rule of Evidence 702.\u00a0\u00a0 The amended rule is available <a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Virgin-Islands-Promulgation-Order-July-2023.pdf\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"c610\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-c610\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Wisconsin<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-c610\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Wisconsin legislation aligning the state\u2019s expert evidence rule with Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Tony Evers on March 6, 2026. SB-459 was signed into law as 2025 WI Act 92. Wisconsin Defense Counsel (WDC) led efforts on behalf of the bill. The bill also enjoyed the support from the Wisconsin business community &#8212; including the Wisconsin State Chamber, the Wisconsin Motor Carriers, and the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance &#8212; and the Wisconsin ACLU.<\/p>\n<p>Wisconsin legislation amending the state\u2019s expert evidence admission standards, SB 459 and AB 458 were introduced in 2025. AB 458 was sponsored by Representative Brent Jacobson, Vice Chair of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, and 11 other state assembly representatives. SB 459 was sponsored by Senator Van Wanggaard, Chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, and three other state senators.<\/p>\n<p>The amendment clarifies Wisconsin\u2019s rules on the admission of expert witness testimony:<\/p>\n<p>1. The trial court must determine the admissibility of expert evidence by employing Wisconsin\u2019s statutory expert evidence standards.<br \/>\n2. The proponent of expert testimony has the burden of establishing the admissibility of expert evidence by a preponderance of the evidence.<br \/>\n3. The court\u2019s gatekeeping responsibility is ongoing\u2014the court\u2019s decision to admit proffered testimony does not allow the expert to ultimately offer an opinion that does not meet Rule 702\u2019s standards.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_small with_line width_50 thick_1 style_solid color_primary align_center\"><div class=\"w-separator-h\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_2 mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:30px;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"g-cols wpb_row via_grid cols_4 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:2rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_cd895498\"><div class=\"vc_column-overlay\" style=\"background:#04194f\"><\/div><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-text us_custom_4555c1b8 has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">RESOURCE<\/span><\/span><\/div><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_6df4bc3a has_text_color\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p><strong>State Fact Sheet<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section content-empty\" id=\"q6b1\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-q6b1\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Wisconsin<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-q6b1\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_small\"><\/div><div class=\"w-btn-wrapper align_none\"><a class=\"w-btn us-btn-style_4\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/States-Should-Clarify-Expert-Witness-Rules.pdf\"><span class=\"w-btn-label\">ViEW<\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_cd895498\"><div class=\"vc_column-overlay\" style=\"background:#04194f\"><\/div><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-text us_custom_4555c1b8 has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">RESOURCE<\/span><\/span><\/div><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_6df4bc3a has_text_color\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h4>IADC<\/h4>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_medium\"><\/div><div class=\"w-btn-wrapper align_none\"><a class=\"w-btn us-btn-style_4\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.iadclaw.org\/\"><span class=\"w-btn-label\">ViEW<\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_cd895498\"><div class=\"vc_column-overlay\" style=\"background:#04194f\"><\/div><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-text us_custom_4555c1b8 has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">RESOURCE<\/span><\/span><\/div><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_6df4bc3a has_text_color\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h4>FDCC<br \/>\nWebsite<\/h4>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_medium\"><\/div><div class=\"w-btn-wrapper align_none\"><a class=\"w-btn us-btn-style_4\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.thefederation.org\/\"><span class=\"w-btn-label\">ViEW<\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_cd895498\"><div class=\"vc_column-overlay\" style=\"background:#04194f\"><\/div><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-text us_custom_4555c1b8 has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">RESOURCE<\/span><\/span><\/div><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_8b3d6790 has_text_color\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h4>DRI<br \/>\nWebsite<\/h4>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_medium\"><\/div><div class=\"w-btn-wrapper align_none\"><a class=\"w-btn us-btn-style_4\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dri.org\/\"><span class=\"w-btn-label\">ViEW<\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_medium\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"State Evidentiary Rule Reform The Need for Reform in the StatesInitiatives to implement amended expert evidence admission standards in FRE 702 are accelerating, and efforts to secure aligned state rules are expanding in 2025. Working groups in over a dozen states are advocating for state expert evidence rule amendments, including new groups in Indiana and...","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-8376","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8376"}],"version-history":[{"count":163,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8376\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15458,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8376\/revisions\/15458"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}