An expert witness is called to testify in a civil action concerning contamination of a town's drinking water. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703 (Bases of an Expert), which of the following situations provides an appropriate foundation for the expert's opinion?
The expert simply repeats, without analysis, the written conclusions of a consulting firm that will not testify, because counsel instructed her to do so.
The expert's opinion is derived from soil and water samples that she collected, along with peer-reviewed studies that environmental scientists in her field typically rely on, even though some of those studies contain hearsay statements.
The expert predicts future health problems that residents might experience, despite having no research or data to support that prediction.
The expert offers an opinion based only on her intuition that chemicals at the site are hazardous, without examining any data.
Rule 703 allows an expert to base an opinion on facts or data that the expert personally observed or that other experts in the field reasonably rely on, even when some of that material contains hearsay or would otherwise be inadmissible. The first answer satisfies this standard because it combines the expert's own testing with peer-reviewed studies commonly used by environmental scientists. The remaining answers fail: an intuition unsupported by data, parroting another consultant's conclusions without independent analysis, and unsupported speculation about future harms do not provide the reliable factual basis required for admissible expert testimony.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is recognized scientific methodology?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What types of data are considered relevant studies?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What constitutes inadmissible testimony in a trial?