Daubert Adoption in Georgia and Adoption History
Georgia adopted the Daubert standard for expert testimony admissibility through O.C.G.A. Section 24-7-702, which took effect on January 1, 2013, as part of the comprehensive Evidence Code reform. ThA statute replaced the prior Frye general acceptance standard with the federal Daubert framework established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Under Daubert, the trial court serves as a gatekeeper responsible for ensuring that expert testimony is both relevant and reliable before it reaches the jury. Initially, O.C.G.A. Section 24-7-702 applied only to civil cases, while criminal cases continued to use the less rigorous Harper standard under former O.C.G.A. Section 24-7-707. The Georgia General Assembly passed HB 478 on March 30, 2022, extending the Daubert standard to criminal prosecutions effective July 1, 2022, making all expert testimony in Georgia subject to the same reliability requirements regardless of whether the case is civil or criminal.
Three-Part Admissibility Test
The Georgia Supreme Court articulated the governing admissibility framework in Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight, 299 Ga. 286 (2016), establishing a three-part test under O.C.G.A. Section 24-7-702. The trial court must assess the qualifications of the expert, the reliability of the testimony, and the relevance or fit of the testimony to the issues in the case. All three requirements must be satisfied for admission. The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of presenting evidence of reliability. Whether expert testimony should be admitted under O.C.G.A. Section 24-7-702 is a question committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. The Georgia Supreme Court endorsed strict adherence to the Daubert framework in HNTB Georgia, Inc. v. Hamilton-King, 287 Ga. 641 (2010), reversing the Court of Appeals which had applied a less rigorous analysis.
How Courts Test Expert Reliability
Georgia courts consider several non-exclusive factors in evaluating the reliability of expert testimony, drawn from the Daubert decision: whether the theory or technique has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and its general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. No single factor is dispositive, and the analysis is flexible depending on the type of expertise involved. The factors serve as guidelines rather than a rigid checklist, and courts may consider additional factors relevant to the specific discipline. The trial court is not required to apply every Daubert factor in every case but must conduct a sufficiently rigorous analysis to fulfill the gatekeeping function.
Application to Criminal Cases After HB 478
Following the 2022 extension of Daubert to criminal cases through HB 478, Georgia courts have begun distinguishing between types of evidence in criminal Daubert challenges. Courts have held that psychomotor field sobriety tests such as walk-and-turn and one-leg stand are non-scientific in nature and may be admitted as lay opinion under O.C.G.A. Section 24-7-701 without meeting Daubert requirements, while the horizontal gaze nystagmus test remains subject to Daubert because it relies on a scientific principle. Your defense attorney in criminal cases now have the same robust gatekeeping protections previously available only in civil cases, and should evaluate the potential for Daubert challenges to forensic evidence including toolmark comparison, bite mark analysis, hair comparison, and other pattern-matching disciplines that have faced reliability criticism.
Forensic Discipline Scrutiny Levels
Different forensic disciplines receive different levels of scrutiny under Daubert, reflecting their varying levels of scientific validation. DNA analysis and toxicology are well established and generally pass Daubert review when proper foundation is laid regarding collection, chain of custody, laboratory analysis, and statistical interpretation. Fingerprint analysis, while widely accepted, faces occasional challenges regarding error rates and examiner proficiency. Firearm toolmark comparison has faced increasing scrutiny due to the subjective nature of the examiner’s conclusion, the lack of established error rates, and the absence of objective criteria for declaring a match. Bite mark analysis has faced substantial criticism from national scientific bodies due to high error rates and the subjective comparison process. Hair analysis and certain pattern matching disciplines face the most significant reliability challenges. Your lawyer can tailor Daubert challenges to the specific discipline at issue and present expert testimony about the methodology’s limitations.
Daubert Hearing Procedure
The law allows file a motion to exclude expert testimony before trial, triggering a Daubert hearing where the trial court evaluates admissibility outside the jury’s presence. The hearing allows both sides to present evidence regarding the expert’s qualifications, the reliability of the methodology, and the relevance of the testimony to the case. ThIn this context, the court may hear testimony from the proffered expert and from opposing experts who challenge the methodology. Building a strong record at the Daubert hearing is essential for appellate review, as the appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion. An effective defense strategy involves identify specific weaknesses in the expert’s methodology, qualifications, or application of principles to the case facts, and should be prepared to present literature, studies, and expert testimony supporting the challenge.
Causation Testimony in Toxic Tort and Complex Cases
The Georgia Court of Appeals addressed the reliability requirements for expert causation testimony in Sterigenics US LLC v. Mutz (Ga. Ct. App. 2025), holding that trial courts evaluating expert testimony on general causation in toxic tort cases must apply a rigorous dose-response analysis. The Court required experts to identify a harmful level of exposure that could cause the alleged harm rather than relying on an any exposure theory. This standard has implications beyond toxic tort cases for any criminal prosecution involving expert testimony on causation, particularly in cases involving allegations of poisoning, environmental crimes, or drug-related offenses where the prosecution must establish a causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the harm.
Excluding Expert Testimony Under Daubert Under Daubert
Your lawyer can evaluate the potential for Daubert challenges in every case involving expert testimony. A successful Daubert challenge can eliminate critical prosecution evidence, potentially resulting in dismissal or acquittal. Key strategies include challenging the expert’s qualifications to testify on the specific topic at issue, attacking the reliability of the methodology through peer-reviewed literature and opposing expert testimony, demonstrating that the expert’s opinion does not fit the facts of the case, identifying departures from established protocols or standards, and highlighting error rates and proficiency testing results.
The trial court has discretion to apply the Daubert factors with greater rigor when an expert’s methodology or objectivity is questionable, as recognized in Butler v. Union Carbide Corp., 310 Ga. App. 21 (2011). The key move for your attorney is to preserve Daubert challenges by filing timely motions, making specific objections on the record, and ensuring that the hearing creates an adequate record for appellate review.