Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (as amended effective December 1, 2023)
United States Courts (rule text as printed by the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives) · Amended April 24, 2023, effective December 1, 2023; credit line in the official print reads "As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011; Apr. 24, 2023, eff. Dec. 1, 2023." · 2023
Access and status
Cost
Free
Free to read or download at source. No account, no purchase.
Status
Current
Current as at the verification date below. Standards and tools both move — confirm at source before you rely on it.
What it is
The federal admissibility rule for expert testimony. The 2023 amendment moved the burden into the rule text — the proponent must demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that each of the four requirements is met — and rewrote subsection (d) so that the opinion must reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Who it is for, and when
Every expert in a federal case should read the current text and stop relying on pre-2023 habits, because the amendment was aimed squarely at overstated forensic conclusions and at conclusions that run past the stated basis. Lawyers should cite the text rather than older circuit language that treated reliability as a jury question. Read it alongside the committee note before drafting or attacking an expert report.
What it does not cover
The rule names no methods and endorses no discipline, so it does not tell you whether any particular forensic technique is reliable. It is federal; states that follow older Daubert or Frye formulations were not changed by it.
Go to the source
Open at law.cornell.edu (opens in a new tab)https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702
Details
- Type
- Standard or guidance
- Written for
- Lawyers and courtsWorking examinerAdvancedLawyers and courts, Working examiner, Advanced
- Publisher
- United States Courts (rule text as printed by the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives)
- Version verified
- Amended April 24, 2023, effective December 1, 2023; credit line in the official print reads "As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011; Apr. 24, 2023, eff. Dec. 1, 2023."
- Year
- 2023
- Topics
- expert-testimony, legal-admissibility, validation, reporting, us-federal
- Checked at source
- Standards are revised. Confirm the current revision with the publisher before citing this.
Related entries
The decision holding that the Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye's general-acceptance test, govern expert scientific testimony, and that the trial judge acts as a gatekeeper for reliability and fit. It offers a non-exclusive list of considerations: testability, peer review and publication, known or potential error rate, standards controlling the technique's operation, and general acceptance.
An 81-page NIJ guide on the legal handling of digital evidence: search and seizure issues including the Fourth Amendment, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Privacy Protection Act; maintaining evidence integrity; pretrial preparation including authentication and hearsay; courtroom presentation and expert testimony; and a chapter on child pornography cases. Appendices include consent forms and evidence return stipulations.
NIST's scientific foundation review of digital forensics, examining the peer-reviewed literature, academic material and practitioner guidance behind digital investigation techniques. It concludes the techniques rest on established computer science methods and are reliable when properly applied, while naming specific limits.
An illustration of sufficient authentication: "Evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result." It is the route by which the output of software, an acquisition tool, or an automated system is authenticated through testimony about the tool rather than about the document.
The decision extending the Daubert gatekeeping obligation to all expert testimony under Rule 702, including technical and other specialized knowledge, and holding that the Daubert considerations are flexible rather than mandatory, with the trial court's choices reviewed for abuse of discretion.