Should a district court be required to conduct a hearing under Daubert to consider the admissibility of expert testimony when the proffered expert admits that there is an absence of experimental psychological research in the relevant area, and there are no peer reviewed studies on the issue?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED There are significant inconsistencies in the determination of admissibility of expert witness opinions in cases involving child sexual abuse. While this Court’s rulings in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), provide some guidance on when such expert testimony should be admitted, and when a preliminary gate-keeping hearing is required to ensure an adequate foundation for that testimony, the lower courts have applied those rulings inconsistently on this issue. As the admission of such expert testimony may greatly enhance a prosecution’s otherwise questionable case of alleged sexual abuse, this Court should provide great guidance in the area of when a hearing under Daubert is required. Specifically, this petition presents the question of: Should a district court be required to conduct a hearing under Daubert to consider the admissibility of expert testimony when the proffered expert admits that there is an absence of experimental psychological research in the relevant area, and there are no peer reviewed studies on the issue? ii