Expert witness standards by state
Each state decides for itself how its judges screen expert testimony. By our count, 24 jurisdictions follow Daubert or a rule built on it, 6 keep the Frye general acceptance test, 5 mix the two, and 16 use a test of their own. Seven states have adopted the December 2023 wording of federal Rule 702. This page sets out each state’s rule with a link to the official text.
- Type
- Practice guide
- Sources checked
- Part of
- Standards
Who this is for
Most forensic scientists, investigators, and examiners testify in state court far more often than in federal court. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert govern federal courts only. Each state sets its own standard, through a court rule, a statute, or case law, and the test a judge applies to your method can differ from one courthouse to the next. For the federal rule and the December 2023 amendment, see Expert testimony and Rule 702.
This guide is for forensic scientists, investigators, and attorneys who offer or challenge expert testimony in state court. For each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia it gives the standard, the rule with a link to the official text where we could reach one, the leading case, when the state adopted Daubert if it did, and whether it adopted the 2023 federal wording. It is general information, not legal advice. The court’s own rules and the official text control.
Three kinds of standard
- Daubert or a rule built on it (24 jurisdictions). The judge acts as gatekeeper and decides whether the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable principles and methods, and applies them reliably to the case. Some states wrote this into their rule or statute; others adopted Daubert by court decision and kept the older rule text.
- Frye general acceptance (6). The question is whether the method is generally accepted in the relevant scientific field. In most Frye states this applies to new or novel scientific methods, and other expert testimony goes through the general helpfulness rule.
- Mixed (5). Alabama, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, and West Virginia use a Daubert-type test for some evidence (usually scientific, or novel scientific) and a different test for the rest. Massachusetts accepts general acceptance alone as proof of reliability.
- The state’s own test (16). These states have not adopted Daubert or Frye as such. Most require some showing of reliability for scientific evidence under their own rule and case law, and several treat Daubert as persuasive. Ohio is in this group even though it adopted the 2023 federal wording, because its rule keeps its own structure.
These labels simplify. A state’s rule can differ by type of case (civil or criminal), by type of evidence, or by when the case was filed. Read the state’s row and its sources before relying on the label.
States that adopted the 2023 federal Rule 702 wording
On December 1, 2023, federal Rule 702 began to say that the proponent must show the court it is “more likely than not” that each requirement is met, and that the expert’s opinion must reflect “a reliable application” of the method to the facts. Seven states have adopted that wording, in order of effective date:
- Arizona, January 1, 2024: Order R-23-0004, filed August 24, 2023, amended Ariz. R. Evid. 702 to conform to the federal change.
- Michigan, May 1, 2024: MRE 702 amended by Michigan Supreme Court order of March 27, 2024. This was separate from Michigan’s restyled rules of January 1, 2024. We read the order date and new text as cited in Danhoff v. Fahim (Mich. 2024) and Platt Convenience v. City of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2024), because the court’s rules site does not allow automated reading.
- Ohio, July 1, 2024: Ohio Evid.R. 702. The Staff Note says “The amendment adopts 2023 changes to Fed. R. Evid. 702.”
- Louisiana, August 1, 2024: Acts 2024, No. 88 (S.B. 16), signed May 21, 2024, amended La. Code Evid. art. 702(A).
- Oklahoma, September 1, 2025: Laws 2025, c. 311, sec. 9, amended 12 O.S. 2702. The statute keeps its older opening clause before the new “more likely than not” language.
- Wisconsin, March 8, 2026: 2025 Wis. Act 92, published March 7, 2026, amended Wis. Stat. 907.02(1). The act states no effective date, so the date comes from Wisconsin’s default rule (Wis. Stat. 991.11). It applies to actions and special proceedings commenced on or after that date; older cases still use the 2011 text.
- South Dakota, March 31, 2026: Supreme Court Rule 26-04 amended SDCL 19-19-702.
Maryland’s Rules Committee proposed the same change to Md. Rule 5-702, and the Supreme Court of Maryland rejected it on April 5, 2024. Colorado and Vermont adopted the other December 2023 federal evidence changes (Rules 106 and 615) but not Rule 702. We found no other adopter as of October 21, 2026.
Every state
“Not confirmed” means we could not confirm the answer from an official source as of October 2026, usually because the court’s site blocked automated reading. It does not mean the answer is no. Where the court’s own copy of an opinion could not be read, the link goes to the copy we read on the Caselaw Access Project or CourtListener. Where a row says the opinion was not read in full, we confirmed the citation and date but not the holding.
| State | Standard | Rule | Leading case | Daubert adopted | 2023 wording |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Mixed. Daubert for scientific testimony under Rule 702(b); the general helpfulness rule for other expert testimony. 702(b) does not apply in domestic-relations, child-support, juvenile, or probate cases. DNA evidence has been under Daubert by statute since 1994 | Ala. R. Evid. 702 (amended eff. January 1, 2012); Ala. Code 12-21-160 | Ex parte State (Turner v. State), 746 So. 2d 355 (Ala. 1998): the 1994 DNA statutes supersede the earlier Frye-based standard for DNA evidence | January 1, 2012, by rule, for civil actions filed and felony arrests on or after that date | No |
| Alaska | Daubert, by case law. The rule text was not changed | Alaska R. Evid. 702 (last amended 1997). 702(b) allows no more than three independent experts per side on the same issue | State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) | March 5, 1999 (Coon) | No |
| Arizona | Daubert, by rule. Federal-style Rule 702 since 2012 | Ariz. R. Evid. 702 (amended by Order R-23-0004) | None needed; set by rule. The Comment to the 2012 amendment explains the change | January 1, 2012 (Order R-10-0035) | Yes, January 1, 2024 |
| Arkansas | Daubert, by case law. The rule keeps the original helpfulness text | Ark. R. Evid. 702 | Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas v. Foote, 341 Ark. 105, 14 S.W.3d 512 (2000): “This court has not previously adopted the holding in Daubert. We do so now.” | April 20, 2000 (Foote) | No |
| California | Frye, as the Kelly rule, for new scientific techniques, plus the trial court’s duty to exclude speculative expert testimony (Sargon) | Cal. Evid. Code 801, 802. The official site blocked automated reading; we read the text as quoted in Sargon | People v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24 (1976); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal. 4th 587 (1994), keeping Kelly after Daubert; Sargon Enterprises v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal. 4th 747 (2012) | Not adopted | No. California’s evidence code is not modeled on the federal rule |
| Colorado | The state’s own test. CRE 702 governs scientific evidence, not Frye; the inquiry is reliability and relevance, and the court must make specific findings | Colo. R. Evid. 702. The official text is published only through LexisNexis and was not read; see the court’s rule-change orders | People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001), decided April 23, 2001 | Not adopted | No. No order amending CRE 702 through October 2026 |
| Connecticut | Daubert, for scientific evidence | Conn. Code Evid. 7-2. The Judicial Branch site blocked automated reading; text not confirmed | State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (1997): “Daubert provides the proper threshold standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence in Connecticut.” Polygraph evidence stays inadmissible | May 20, 1997 (Porter) | Not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026 |
| District of Columbia | Daubert. D.C. has no codified rules of evidence and adopted federal Rule 702 by decision, replacing its Dyas/Frye test | Federal Rule 702 as adopted in Motorola v. Murray | Motorola Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016) (en banc) | October 20, 2016 (Motorola) | Not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026. Whether D.C. courts apply the 2023 text is a case-law question |
| Delaware | Daubert. D.R.E. 702 was amended in 2001 to track the federal rule as of December 31, 2000 | Del. R. Evid. 702 | M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999), cited in the official D.R.E. 702 Comment as “adopting Kumho Tire and Daubert as the correct interpretation of D.R.E. 702” | April 30, 1999 (M.G. Bancorporation; modified on denial of reargument May 27, 1999); rule amended 2001 | Not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026. No D.R.E. 702 order appears on the court’s rules page, but the current text could not be confirmed |
| Florida | Daubert. The Legislature adopted it by statute in 2013; in DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018), the Florida Supreme Court held the statute infringed its rulemaking authority, and it then adopted the Daubert amendment as a court rule in 2019 | Fla. Stat. 90.702 (ch. 2013-107) | In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 210 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 2017) declined to adopt the 2013 change as a court rule. The Court’s later 2019 adoption (278 So. 3d 551) was not checked against an official copy | 2013, by statute; the statute was held to infringe the Court’s rulemaking authority on October 15, 2018 (DeLisle); adopted as a court rule in 2019 (exact date not checked against an official copy) | No |
| Georgia | Daubert, by statute. Civil cases since the 2005 Tort Reform Act. Criminal cases used the Harper standard. A 2022 extension of the statute to criminal cases (HB 961) is reported but not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026 | O.C.G.A. 24-7-702, first enacted as 24-9-67.1. Georgia has no free official code site, so the current text was not read | Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 283 Ga. 271 (2008) on the 2005 statute; Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 (1982) for the older criminal standard | 2005, civil cases | Not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026 |
| Hawaii | The state’s own test. The court may consider the trustworthiness and validity of the scientific technique; federal Daubert cases are instructive but not adopted | Haw. R. Evid. 702 (HRS 626-1). The official sites were blocked or did not respond; we read the text as quoted in Vliet | State v. Montalbo, 73 Haw. 130 (1992); State v. Vliet, 95 Haw. 94 (2001): “this court has not adopted the Daubert test ... and we expressly refrain from doing so” | Not adopted | Not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026 |
| Idaho | The state’s own test. Neither Daubert nor Frye formally adopted | Idaho R. Evid. 702 (eff. July 1, 2018), helpfulness text only | Weeks v. Eastern Idaho Health Services, 143 Idaho 834 (2007): the Court “has not adopted the Daubert standard” but has used some of its standards | Not adopted | No |
| Illinois | Frye, for new or novel scientific methods. Applies to the methodology, not the conclusion | Ill. R. Evid. 702. The comment says “Illinois is a Frye state” | Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 199 Ill. 2d 63 (2002) | Not adopted | No |
| Indiana | The state’s own test. Scientific testimony is admissible only if it rests on reliable scientific principles | Ind. R. Evid. 702(b) (eff. January 1, 2014) | Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. 1995) (opinion not read in full) | Not adopted | No |
| Iowa | The state’s own test, under the Rule 5.702 helpfulness standard | Iowa R. Evid. 5.702 | Leaf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 590 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 1999) (opinion not read in full) | Not adopted | No. Last evidence-rule order took effect January 1, 2023 |
| Kansas | Daubert, by statute since 2014. Before that, Frye | K.S.A. 60-456(b) (L. 2014, ch. 84) | State v. Lyman, 311 Kan. 1 (2020), cited in the Revisor’s annotations (opinion not read) | July 1, 2014, by statute | No |
| Kentucky | Daubert, applied to all expert testimony | KRE 702 (amended eff. May 1, 2007). The court’s own rules site blocked automated reading | Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575 (Ky. 2000), applying Daubert to engineers and other experts | By 2000 at the latest (Goodyear). The earlier 1995 date often given (Mitchell v. Commonwealth) was not checked | No, per the Legislative Research Commission copy of KRE 702 (effective May 1, 2007). The court’s own rules site could not be read, so a later court order is not ruled out |
| Louisiana | Daubert, by case law since 1993 (Foret); Article 702 now tracks the federal text. Article 702(B) adds limits on memory and eyewitness-identification experts | La. Code Evid. art. 702 | State v. Foret, 628 So. 2d 1116 (La. 1993): the court adopted the Daubert “observations” as the guide to the threshold reliability required by La. C.E. art. 702 | November 30, 1993 (Foret) | Yes, August 1, 2024 |
| Maine | The state’s own test: relevance and helpfulness with a threshold of reliability. General acceptance may be considered but is not required | Me. R. Evid. 702 | State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978); Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pennsylvania, 2005 ME 94, 878 A.2d 509, declining to adopt Daubert | Not adopted | No |
| Maryland | Daubert, by case law, replacing Frye-Reed | Md. Rule 5-702, as quoted in Rochkind | Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020); see also Katz, Abosch v. Parkway Neuroscience and Spine Institute, 485 Md. 335 (2023) | August 28, 2020 (Rochkind) | No. Proposed alignment rejected April 5, 2024 |
| Massachusetts | Mixed. The proponent may show reliability by general acceptance alone, or by a Daubert-Lanigan analysis | Mass. G. Evid. 702 (2026 ed.). The Guide restates the common law; it is not a rule of court | Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994) | 1994, as an alternative to general acceptance | No |
| Michigan | Daubert, by rule. MCL 600.2955 adds reliability factors for scientific opinions in death, injury, and property actions | Mich. R. Evid. 702, as quoted in Platt Convenience (2024); MCL 600.2955 | Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749 (2004) | 2004, by rule amendment (469 Mich cxci). The exact effective date was not confirmed | Yes, May 1, 2024 |
| Minnesota | Frye-Mack. Foundational reliability for all expert opinion, plus general acceptance for novel scientific theory | Minn. R. Evid. 702 (amended eff. September 1, 2006) | Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 2000): “we reaffirm our adherence to the Frye-Mack standard and reject Daubert” | Not adopted | No |
| Mississippi | Daubert, as modified by Kumho Tire | Miss. R. Evid. 702 (amended May 29, 2003). The court’s site returned an error; current text not confirmed | Mississippi Transportation Commission v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003) | 2003 (rule amendment and McLemore) | Not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026 |
| Missouri | Daubert-style, by statute, in most cases. The older Missouri standard still applies in family, juvenile, and probate cases and in actions with no right to a jury trial | RSMo 490.065 (2017 H.B. 153) | None needed; set by statute. Earlier standard: State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. 2003) | August 28, 2017, by statute | No |
| Montana | Mixed. Daubert for novel scientific evidence; the general rule for other expert testimony. The “novel only” limit comes from later Montana cases we did not check | Mont. R. Evid. 702 (1977 text) | State v. Moore, 268 Mont. 20 (1994), a DNA case: “we, therefore, adopt the Daubert standard for the admission of scientific expert testimony” | November 22, 1994 (Moore) | No |
| Nebraska | Daubert, by case law. Nebraska calls it the Daubert/Schafersman framework | Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-702 (1975 text) | Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (2001) | For trials beginning on or after October 1, 2001 (Schafersman, decided July 20, 2001) | No |
| Nevada | The state’s own test: qualification, assistance, and limited scope. Daubert is persuasive only | NRS 50.275 (unchanged since 1971) | Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492 (2008) | Not adopted | No |
| New Hampshire | Daubert, by case law and since 2004 by statute. The statute lists the Daubert factors | RSA 516:29-a (eff. July 16, 2004). The court rule, N.H. R. Evid. 702, could not be read (site blocked automated reading) | Baker Valley Lumber, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 148 N.H. 609 (2002): “Today, we apply the Daubert standard to New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 702.” | December 12, 2002 (Baker Valley Lumber) | Statute: No, unchanged since 2004. Court rule: not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026 |
| New Jersey | Daubert-type. Civil cases since 2018 (Accutane). In criminal cases, State v. Olenowski (2023) is reported to have replaced Frye with a Daubert-type test; we could not read the opinion | N.J.R.E. 702. The Judiciary’s site blocked automated reading; text not confirmed | In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J. 340 (2018). State v. Olenowski (N.J. 2023): the reporter citation and decision date are not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026 | August 1, 2018, civil (Accutane). Criminal: not confirmed | Not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026 |
| New Mexico | Mixed. Daubert-Alberico for scientific testimony; Rule 11-702 alone for experience-based and other non-scientific testimony | Rule 11-702 NMRA. The commentary says New Mexico did not adopt the 2000 federal changes | State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156 (1993): “Today we abandon the Frye test” | August 30, 1993 (Alberico), scientific evidence only | No |
| New York | Frye, for novel science, plus a separate foundation inquiry into whether accepted methods were properly applied in the case | No codified evidence code. Guide to N.Y. Evidence 7.01 restates the rule; the court site blocked automated reading | People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417 (1994); Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 7 N.Y.3d 434 (2006) | Not adopted | No. New York has no codified rule to amend |
| North Carolina | Daubert, by statute since 2011. Rule 702 also covers HGN and drug recognition expert testimony | N.C. Gen. Stat. 8C-1, Rule 702 | State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880 (2016): Rule 702 now incorporates the Daubert standard | October 1, 2011, for actions commenced on or after that date (S.L. 2011-283) | No |
| North Dakota | The state’s own test under the Rule 702 helpfulness standard. Case law on Daubert was not checked | N.D.R.Ev. 702 (eff. March 1, 2014) | Not identified | Not checked | No |
| Ohio | The state’s own test. Rule 702 has its own structure, including tests for procedures and experiments, and rejects Frye as the exclusive standard | Ohio Evid.R. 702 (amended 1994 and July 1, 2024) | Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St. 3d 607 (1998) (opinion not read in full) | Not adopted as such | Yes, July 1, 2024 |
| Oklahoma | Daubert, by case law and statute | 12 O.S. 2702 | Taylor v. State, 1995 OK CR 10, 889 P.2d 319 (criminal); Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10, 65 P.3d 591 (civil) | 1995 in criminal cases (Taylor); 2003 in civil cases (Christian) | Yes, September 1, 2025 |
| Oregon | The state’s own test for scientific evidence, from State v. Brown (1984); Daubert considered helpful | ORS 40.410 (OEC 702) | State v. O’Key, 321 Or. 285 (1995) | Not adopted | No |
| Pennsylvania | Frye. The methodology must be generally accepted in the relevant field | Pa.R.E. 702(c). The comment says the rule “rejects the federal test derived from Daubert” | Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 576 Pa. 546 (2003) | Not adopted | No |
| Rhode Island | The state’s own test: a flexible relevance and helpfulness analysis, drawing on Daubert and Kumho gatekeeping principles | R.I. R. Evid. 702 | DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I. 1999) | Not adopted | No, as of the February 2024 official compilation |
| South Carolina | The state’s own test. The judge must find the evidence will assist, the expert is qualified, and the science is reliable, using the State v. Jones (1979) factors | SCRE 702 | State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1 (1999): “this Court does not adopt Daubert” | Not adopted | No |
| South Dakota | Daubert, by case law and rule | SDCL 19-19-702 | State v. Hofer, 512 N.W.2d 482 (S.D. 1994) | February 23, 1994 (Hofer) | Yes, March 31, 2026 |
| Tennessee | The state’s own test. Evidence must “substantially assist” the trier of fact, and the court may exclude opinions whose underlying data lack trustworthiness | Tenn. R. Evid. 702, 703. The court site blocked automated reading; current text not confirmed | McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997): Rules 702 and 703 supersede Frye | Not adopted | Not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026 |
| Texas | The state’s own test, by case law: Kelly in criminal cases (reliability of novel scientific evidence by clear and convincing evidence), Robinson in civil cases (relevant and reliable) | Tex. R. Evid. 702 | Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) | Not adopted as such | No |
| Utah | The state’s own test: a threshold showing of reliability for all expert testimony. General acceptance satisfies it | Utah R. Evid. 702 (eff. November 1, 2007), from the court’s legacy rules page | None needed; set by rule. Earlier: State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 (Utah 1989) (not checked) | Not adopted | No, on the legacy page. The court’s newer rules site could not be read |
| Vermont | Daubert, by case law | Vt. R. Evid. 702. The text is published only through LexisNexis; see the promulgated rules | State v. Brooks, 162 Vt. 26 (1993); 985 Associates v. Daewoo Electronics America, 2008 VT 14 | 1993 (Brooks) | No. Vermont adopted the 2023 changes to Rules 106 and 615 but not 702 |
| Virginia | The state’s own test. The court must make a threshold reliability finding for scientific evidence. In criminal cases the subject must also be beyond ordinary knowledge | Va. R. Sup. Ct. 2:702; Va. Code 8.01-401.3 | Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78 (1990); John v. Im, 263 Va. 315 (2002), which left the Daubert question open | Not adopted | No |
| Washington | Frye, for novel scientific evidence, plus ER 702 helpfulness. Frye is not triggered where the method is generally accepted, even if the conclusion is new | Wash. ER 702 | State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244 (1996); Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, 172 Wn.2d 593 (2011) | Not adopted | No |
| West Virginia | Mixed. Daubert-type reliability for novel scientific evidence under Rule 702(b); the general rule for other expert testimony | W. Va. R. Evid. 702 (eff. September 2, 2014) | Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W. Va. 39 (1993): “Daubert’s analysis of Federal Rule 702 should be followed” | December 13, 1993 (Wilt) | No |
| Wisconsin | Daubert, by statute since 2011. Before that, a relevancy-based approach | Wis. Stat. 907.02. 907.02(2) bars experts paid on a contingency basis | State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, cited in the Legislature’s annotations (opinion not read) | February 1, 2011 (2011 Wis. Act 2; date from the default rule) | Yes, March 8, 2026, for actions commenced on or after that date |
| Wyoming | Daubert, adopted as guidance without abandoning Wyoming’s own precedent | Wyo. R. Evid. 702. The court site blocked automated reading; text not confirmed | Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P.2d 467 (Wyo. 1999) | July 16, 1999 (Bunting) | Not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026 |
What we could not confirm
These points are not confirmed from an official source as of October 2026. We state them as open, not as fact.
- 2023 wording: Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee, Wyoming, and the New Hampshire court rule. The courts’ or legislatures’ sites blocked automated reading or returned errors. For Delaware and Hawaii we found no amendment order, but could not confirm the current text.
- New Jersey, State v. Olenowski: the reporter citation and decision date. Neither the Judiciary’s site nor a mirror copy could be read.
- Georgia, HB 961 (2022): the act number, effective date, and terms of the extension of O.C.G.A. 24-7-702 to criminal cases. Georgia has no free official code site, and the legislature’s bill documents could not be reached.
How we checked
A researcher compiled each state from the official rule or statute and the leading cases. Two verifiers then re-checked the states between them, each taking a separate set, plus the open questions, reading rule texts and amendment histories on official court and legislature sites and leading cases in official-reporter scans from the Caselaw Access Project. Where the verifiers corrected the researcher, this page uses the corrected value. Sites that refused automated requests were not bypassed; those gaps are marked in the table. Checked October 21, 2026.
Related guides
For the federal rule, Daubert, Kumho Tire, and what the December 2023 amendment means for forensic examiners, see Expert testimony and Rule 702.
This page is general information, not legal advice. USCLI is not a government agency. Standards for expert testimony change, and a state may apply different rules by case type, evidence type, or filing date. The court’s own rules and the official text control. Confirm what applies in a specific case with the attorney who calls you or a qualified attorney.
Last updated October 21, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “Expert witness standards by state: Daubert, Frye and state tests,” uscli.org/guides/expert-witness-standards-by-state (last updated October 21, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.