5th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 3.5

When knowledge of technical subject matter may

be helpful to the jury, a person who has special training

or experience in that technical field is permitted to state

his or her opinion on those technical matters. However,

you are not required to accept that opinion. As with

any other witness, it is up to you to decide whether to

rely on it.

1

1The instruction does not refer to the witness as an “expert” in the

jury charge. Rules 702 and 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence were

amended in 2000 in response to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. , 509

U.S. 579 (1993), and the many cases applying Daubert, including Kumho

Tire Co. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Rules 702 and 703 continue

“the practice of . . . referring to a qualified witness as an ‘expert’ ” in the

rule itself. Fed. R. Evid. 702 Committee Note on 2000 amendments.

However, Rule 702’s Committee Note to the 2000 Amendments recognize

that:

Indeed, there is much to be said for the practice that prohibits the

use of the term “expert” by both the parties and the court at trial.

Such a practice “ensures that trial courts do not inadvertently put

their stamp of authority” on a witness’s opinion, and protects against

the jury’s being “overwhelmed by the so-called ‘experts’.”

Fed. R. Evid. 702 Committee Note on 2000 amendments (quoting Hon.

Charles Richey , Proposal to Eliminate the Prejudicial Effect of the Use of

the Word “Expert” Under the Federal Rules of Evidence in Criminal and

Civil Jury Trials , 154 F .R.D. 537, 559 (1994)).

3.5JURY CHARGE

33