What standard does Georgia follow for the admissibility of expert testimony?

Georgia follows the Daubert Standard for the admissibility of expert testimony. This standard is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which established that trial judges must act as "gatekeepers" to ensure that any and all scientific evidence admitted is not only relevant but also reliable. Under the Daubert Standard, the court evaluates the methodology and principles behind the expert's testimony, considering factors such as whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested, whether it has been subject to peer review and publication, the known or potential error rates, and the general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.

This standard emphasizes the importance of scientific validity and the relevance of expert testimony, providing a more rigorous framework for determining what constitutes reliable expert evidence compared to the Frye Standard, which focuses mainly on general acceptance in the field. In Georgia's legal context, the adoption of the Daubert Standard reflects a modern approach to expert testimony that seeks to ensure that juries receive sound and scientifically grounded information.

In contrast, the Frye Standard, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Georgia Evidence Code do not capture the specific gatekeeping function laid out in Daubert that courts in Georgia are now expected to implement.