When a trial court errs by failing to exercise its "gatekeeping" role of determining whether expert testimony is relevant and reliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), should the reviewing court remedy the error by:

• remanding for a new trial if the error was not harmless, as the Fifth and Tenth Circuits do;

• making the initial Daubert decision itself, as the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits do; or

• remanding for the trial court to make the initial Daubert determination, as the First, Third, and Federal Circuits do.

When a trial court errs by failing to exercise its 'gatekeeping' role of determining whether expert testimony is relevant and reliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1998), should the reviewing court remedy the error