Also known as: case-specific approaches · case specific approach · case specific approaches · case-by-case approach
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A method of evaluating the reliability of expert testimony that requires courts to examine the particular facts and circumstances of each case rather than applying a fixed set of requirements. The approach permits consideration of the traditional Daubert factors when they fit the expertise at issue or any other suitable markers of trustworthiness suited to technical or experience-based fields.
In a products liability suit, a mechanical engineer offers an opinion on press guard safety based on proprietary finite-element modeling and internal warranty spreadsheets. The court declines to exclude the testimony outright and instead reviews the modeling assumptions and data sources against the specific facts of the case to decide whether the methods are sufficiently trustworthy for the jury.
A defendant convicted of bank fraud argues that the jury instructions omitted an element of the offense. The appellate court examines the entire trial record, including the strength of the evidence and the arguments actually made to the jury, to determine whether the instructional omission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in this particular prosecution.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A seventeen-year-old convicted of armed robbery receives a life sentence without parole. The court reviews the offender's individual history, the circumstances of the crime, and the penological justifications presented in the record to decide whether the sentence is disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment for this defendant.
Police arrest a suspected drunk driver and order a blood test without a warrant. The court weighs the dissipating nature of alcohol in the blood against the time needed to obtain a warrant and the availability of less intrusive tests under the specific facts presented to determine whether exigent circumstances justified the search.
A probationer faces revocation based on new criminal charges. The court evaluates the complexity of the factual issues, the probationer's ability to present a defense, and the risk of erroneous deprivation to decide whether due process requires appointed counsel in this revocation proceeding.
An indigent defendant appears at a preliminary hearing where the state presents witnesses and the magistrate determines probable cause. The court assesses the importance of the hearing to the defense, the complexity of the issues, and the defendant's capacity to proceed without assistance to decide whether counsel must be provided at this stage.
No. The approach applies to all expert testimony based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Courts must perform a reliability assessment for engineers, agronomists, art authenticators, and police trainers as well as laboratory scientists.
Supporting sources
A court may consider the traditional Daubert factors when they fit the expertise or any other appropriate indicia of reliability. Relevant markers can include the expert's practical experience, consistency of field application, use of industry standards, or systematic comparison methods tailored to the discipline.
Supporting sources
No. While testing and peer review remain relevant when they fit the field, the approach recognizes that many technical and experience-based disciplines do not lend themselves to laboratory validation. Courts may accept alternative indicia such as repeated successful field use or consistency with professional norms.
Supporting sources
No. Experience supplies one potential indicium of reliability but does not relieve the court of its gatekeeping duty. The court must still determine whether the expert's particular methods and reasoning are trustworthy when applied to the facts of the case.
Supporting sources
…offenders who are not sufficiently culpable to merit that punishment.” Ante , at 74, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 845. It argues that a case-by-case approach to proportionality review is constitutionally insufficient because courts might not be able “with sufficient accuracy [to] distinguish the few incorrigible juvenile offenders from the many…