This article considers the role of the trial court in responding to the changes wrought by scientific innovation. Particular consideration is given to the impact likely to be realized in Ohio trial courts from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
[...]In order to appreciate the significance of Ohio Evidence Rule 102 in this context, it is helpful to first examine some of the events leading to Daubert, especially the application (and in some instances, the rejection) of Frye both in Ohio and at the federal level. Following that, this article will examine the rationale of Daubert as it might apply in Ohio given the limitations of Ohio Evidence Rule 102. Last, the recommendation is made that this is an opportune time to align Ohio Evidence Rule 102 with Federal Evidence Rule 102, and to supplement the Ohio Rules of Evidence to expressly invest the trial court with broad authority to appoint expert scientific witnesses in the manner already permitted in Federal Evidence Rule 706.
Lepp, Michael and McNeil, Chrisopher B.
"The Trial Judge as Gatekeeper for Scientific Evidence: Will Ohio Rule of Evidence 102 Frustrate the Ohio Courts' Role Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow?,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 27
, Article 1.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol27/iss2/1