Wisconsin and the Daubert
So let's have a discussion. The Wisconsin Senate voted recently to adopt the much more strict Daubert
standard for admitting expert testimony. Alas, this standard will only apply to civil trials. Now, why would this new standard only apply to civil trials? Because the Wisconsin Senate perceives a problem with civil litigation. So their answer is to make it too expensive to bring civil suits. I fail to see the logic. If expert testimony is so important in in civil trials that we want to ensure that only scientifically accepted (sound) evidence will be admitted, why not in criminal trials? Are defendants not entitled to such a standard? If anything, I think the Daubert
standard should be applied to criminal trials and not civil trials.
I have another theory too. The State doesn't have the money to prosecute under the Daubert
standard. But I find it strange that the State seems to think that counsel for plaintiffs and defendants in civil trials have the resources to operate under the Daubert
standard. I think it's slightly underhanded for the State to attempt to price out of court Plaintiffs that cannot afford the Daubert
standard, while not requiring their own prosecutions to proceed under the same standard.