In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), this Court held that Fed. R. Evid. 702 superseded the common law rule governing the admission of expert testimony based on scientific or other specialized knowledge. Rule 702 required instead that "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."

After Daubert, is there a valid basis to treat expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification differently from other scientifically based evidence?

Whether expert testimony on eyewitness identification should be treated differently than other expert testimony