This paper summarizes and presents the arguments on behalf
of defendant-appellee William Jones in the appeal of the rulings of the trial court in this case.
In excluding the testimony of Dr. Betty Smith on the Recovered Memory syndrome (RMs), the trial court correctly applied the California rules of evidence rather than the Federal Rules of Evidence. In a case such as this one where the jurisdiction of the Federal Court is based on diversity of citizenship and tort claims based on state law, state law concerning the admission of expert testimony is applicable under the holding of Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins (1938) 304 U.S. 64 and subsequent cases and the policies underlying those cases.
If state rules of evidence were applicable, the ruling of the trial court on defendant's Motion in Limine was correct. Plaintiff's expert testimony on RMs was inadmissible under California law because the techniques involved are new, untested and not generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.
Even if the Federal Rules of Evidence are applicable, the trial court acted within its discretion and took the steps necessary to satisfy itself that the proffered expert testimony was unreliable and therefore inadmissible under Sections 702 and 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence under the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) 113 S. Ct. 2786.
I. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN APPLYING THE EVIDENTIARY RULES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN DECIDING THAT DR. SMITH'S TESTIMONY ON RMs WAS ADMISSIBLE.
Section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 92 (1789), states that: "The laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statute of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decisions in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply." In interpreting the applica...