Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony in Georgia

Georgia’s approach to evaluating expert witness testimony changed significantly when the state adopted a version of the federal Daubert reliability standard. That adoption happened in two distinct stages, first for civil cases and later for criminal cases, a sequencing that many general summaries flatten into a single date. Understanding both the standard itself and its staged rollout clarifies how Georgia courts currently evaluate proposed expert testimony.

O.C.G.A. 24-7-702 and the 2013 Evidence Code Overhaul

Georgia adopted the federal Daubert standard for expert witness admissibility through O.C.G.A. 24-7-702, part of a comprehensive overhaul of Georgia’s Evidence Code (HB 24) that took effect January 1, 2013. That overhaul restructured large portions of Georgia evidence law to align more closely with the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the treatment of expert testimony was one of the most significant changes within that broader reform.

Replacing the Harper Standard

Before the 2013 overhaul, Georgia courts evaluated the admissibility of expert and scientific testimony under the Harper v. State standard, which centered on whether a technique or methodology had gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. O.C.G.A. 24-7-702 replaced that general-acceptance approach with the more detailed, multifactor Daubert framework, shifting the inquiry away from a single acceptance question toward a broader assessment of reliability.

The Three-Part Reliability Inquiry

Under the current standard, expert testimony must satisfy three requirements: it must be based on sufficient facts or data; it must be the product of reliable principles and methods; and the expert must have reliably applied those principles and methods to the specific facts of the case. All three components must be satisfied, not merely the underlying methodology in the abstract; the standard also examines how that methodology was actually applied to the facts at hand.

The Daubert Reliability Factors

The reliability inquiry draws on four non-exclusive factors identified by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993): whether the underlying theory or technique can be, and has been, tested; whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; the known or potential rate of error associated with the technique; and whether the technique has gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. These factors are not a rigid checklist that must each be satisfied; they are tools a court may use, alongside other relevant considerations, in assessing reliability.

Legislative Direction to Follow Federal Precedent

Georgia’s statute expressly directs courts to draw guidance from federal Daubert jurisprudence, including Daubert itself, General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), which addressed the standard of appellate review for a trial court’s admissibility ruling, and Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), which extended the Daubert reliability framework beyond purely scientific testimony to other forms of technical and specialized expert testimony. This legislative directive means Georgia courts interpreting the reliability standard look directly to this body of federal case law for guidance, rather than developing an entirely separate state-specific reliability jurisprudence from scratch.

The Trial Judge’s Gatekeeping Role

Central to the Daubert framework is the trial judge’s role as a gatekeeper. Before expert testimony reaches the jury, the trial court is responsible for screening out testimony that does not meet the reliability requirements, regardless of how qualified the proposed expert may be in a general sense. This gatekeeping function applies whether the challenge concerns scientific evidence in the traditional sense or other specialized or technical expert testimony covered by the statute.

The 2022 Extension to Criminal Cases

A critical and often-overlooked detail is that O.C.G.A. 24-7-702, as originally enacted in 2013, applied to civil cases. The Daubert standard was extended to criminal proceedings only later, through HB 478, effective July 1, 2022. Before that extension, the older Harper general-acceptance standard continued to govern the admissibility of expert testimony in Georgia criminal cases, even after the civil side of Georgia practice had already moved to the Daubert framework in 2013. General summaries that describe Georgia as having adopted Daubert across the board in 2013 miss this nearly decade-long gap between the civil and criminal applications of the standard.

A Two-Stage Adoption Worth Understanding

Recognizing the two-stage history, Daubert for civil cases in 2013 and its extension to criminal cases in 2022, gives a more accurate picture of how Georgia arrived at its current expert-testimony framework, and explains why older criminal cases decided before mid-2022 may reflect the prior Harper standard rather than the multifactor Daubert analysis used today.

This article provides general information about Georgia law and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Georgia attorney about a specific situation.