Issues & Legislation

New Jersey's Rules of Evidence are Weak

'Bad science' in the courtroom can have devastating effects.

THE PROBLEM

New Jersey's court rules regarding what may be considered hard science have not been updated since 1991. Judges therefore often allow testimony which might be barred as unreliable in federal court and in the majority of state courts. During the same time period, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Uniform Rules of Evidence, and evidence rules in many other states have evolved to reflect contemporary science, while New Jersey’s have not. The current rules don’t require a witness’s testimony to be consistent with reliable scientific principles and methods used by other experts in that field, like they do in Federal court.

THE CONSEQUENCES

New Jersey's weak evidentiary standards have meant that New Jersey's courtrooms have become a target for personal injury lawyers promoting unsubstantiated scientific theory. There is a reason why 93% of mass tort litigation against our pharmaceutical companies have been filed by out-of-state plaintiffs: New Jersey has made it possible to sue businesses based upon novel legal theories that few other states would entertain. Weak evidentiary standards can be particularly harmful to an industry's viability, as testimony given by experts in court can determine a trial's outcome – and ultimately, whether a business will cease to exist.  Similarly, health care providers such as doctors, hospitals and nurses are not judged on the most reliable science when determining liability for poor medical outcomes.

NJLRA'S SOLUTION

Attempts to reform the Rules of Evidence through the Judiciary's rule making process have been unsuccessful. Many states have successfully passed legislation to reform their expert evidence rules. To date, New Jersey has not done so.

Before a witness offers expert testimony in a civil matter, the court should be able to decide whether he or she is in fact an expert in the relevant subject matter and whether their opinion applies the relevant science appropriately to the facts of the case. An expert qualification hearing prior to a trial’s start can prevent witnesses from overstating relevant levels of expertise.