Forensic and expert testimony can be the most persuasive evidence in a criminal trial, and the most overstated. A drug identification, a DNA match, a medical opinion, or a digital analysis arrives wrapped in the authority of science, and a jury can take it as fact. Florida law does not. It makes the trial judge a gatekeeper who must decide whether an expert’s opinion is reliable enough to be heard at all.
That gate is the Daubert standard, and it is where a forensic challenge is won or lost, often before the jury hears a word.
Florida Is a Daubert State
In 2013 the Florida Legislature amended sections 90.702 and 90.704 of the Evidence Code to adopt the federal Daubert standard and to direct courts to follow Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and the related United States Supreme Court decisions in Kumho Tire and Joiner, known together as the Daubert trilogy. After years of dispute, the Florida Supreme Court confirmed Daubert as the governing standard in 2019. In short, Florida no longer applies the older, more permissive test, and every expert the State offers has to satisfy Daubert.
I am one of a small number of Florida attorneys trained as a forensic lawyer-scientist, with bench training in forensic chemistry at Axion Analytical Labs. That training taught me to read forensic science, so I know which experts to retain and how to test the State’s expert on the ground they stand on: the method, the data, and whether the opinion really follows from the science. Florida applies the Daubert standard, and Daubert is built for exactly that kind of challenge. Learn more about my background.
What the Standard Requires
Section 90.702 sets out what the proponent of expert testimony must establish. Each requirement is a place the defense can press.
| Requirement | What it means |
|---|---|
| A qualified expert | The witness must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to offer the opinion. A credential in one area does not license an opinion in another. |
| Sufficient facts or data | The opinion has to rest on enough facts or data, not on speculation or a thin sample. The defense probes what the expert actually had to work with. |
| Reliable principles and methods | The opinion must be the product of reliable principles and methods, the heart of the Daubert inquiry, which looks at testing, error rates, standards, and acceptance in the field. |
| Reliable application | The expert must have applied those principles and methods reliably to the facts of this case. A sound method used carelessly is still vulnerable. |
The Gatekeeper and the Daubert Hearing
Because the judge decides reliability, the defense can demand a Daubert hearing and put the State’s expert and the method under oath before trial. That is the moment to expose an unvalidated technique, an error rate the field does not talk about, a leap from data to conclusion that the science does not support, or an analyst who departed from the protocol. Win it, and the opinion is excluded; even a partial win narrows what the expert can claim. The companion attack on the underlying lab work lives in challenging the drug evidence and challenging the evidence in a violent case.
Common Questions
What is the Daubert standard?
It is the test Florida uses to decide whether expert testimony is reliable enough to be admitted. The judge, acting as a gatekeeper, looks at whether the expert is qualified, whether the opinion rests on sufficient facts or data, whether it comes from reliable principles and methods, and whether those methods were applied reliably to the case. An opinion that fails can be kept out entirely.
Does Florida still follow the Frye standard?
No. Florida moved to the Daubert standard. The Legislature adopted it by amending the Evidence Code in 2013, and the Florida Supreme Court confirmed Daubert as the governing standard in 2019. Expert testimony in Florida criminal cases is now measured against Daubert, which gives the defense a stronger tool to challenge the reliability of the science.
What kinds of experts can be challenged this way?
All of them, because the standard applies to scientific, technical, and other specialized testimony. In criminal cases that includes drug identification, DNA, firearm and toolmark comparison, digital forensics, and medical or autopsy opinions. The question is always the same: is the method reliable, and was it applied reliably here?
What is a Daubert hearing?
It is a pretrial hearing where the judge decides whether the expert's opinion meets the standard. The defense can question the expert about the method, the data, the error rate, and the application, and can present its own evidence. The judge then rules on whether the jury hears the opinion, all of it, or none of it.
Can challenging the expert really change the outcome?
Yes. When the forensic opinion is the spine of the State's case, excluding or narrowing it can collapse the prosecution or force a far better resolution. Even when the opinion comes in, the weaknesses surfaced in the challenge become powerful material for cross-examination in front of the jury.
Related: Legal defenses overview, Challenging the evidence, The motion to suppress, and About Rory Safir.
This page is general information about Florida law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Expert testimony in Florida is governed by sections 90.702 and 90.704, Florida Statutes, which adopt the Daubert standard from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kumho Tire, and Joiner; the Legislature adopted that standard in Chapter 2013-107, Laws of Florida, and the Florida Supreme Court confirmed it in In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 278 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2019). Whether a particular opinion can be excluded depends entirely on the specific facts, and the law can change, so confirm anything here with counsel about your own situation. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements.
