Loading
State by State Expert Witness Rules
5 min read
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 was amended in 2024 to expressly require proponents of expert testimony to show, more likely than not, that the rule’s admissibility requirements are satisfied and that the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the methodology to the case facts. This article explains the current MRE 702 standard, its relationship to Daubert and MCL 600.2955, and the issues attorneys should evaluate when preparing or challenging expert testimony in Michigan.
Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony in proceedings governed by the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Effective May 1, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court amended the rule to expressly require the proponent to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the four listed admissibility requirements are satisfied. The amendment also requires the expert's opinion to reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The changes closely track amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, although Michigan courts already applied Daubert-based reliability principles before 2024.
This guide explains what changed in MRE 702, what the current rule requires, and what attorneys should evaluate when preparing or challenging expert testimony in Michigan.
The 2024 amendment made two changes especially important to expert admissibility disputes:
The Michigan Supreme Court's staff comment identifies these two changes. The staff comment also states that it is not an authoritative construction by the Court.
An expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The proponent must also demonstrate that it is more likely than not that four requirements are satisfied:
These requirements apply to scientific, technical, and other specialized expertise, not only traditional laboratory science.
Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony in proceedings governed by the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Effective May 1, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court amended the rule to expressly require the proponent to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the four listed admissibility requirements are satisfied. The amendment also requires the expert's opinion to reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The changes closely track amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, although Michigan courts already applied Daubert-based reliability principles before 2024.
This guide explains what changed in MRE 702, what the current rule requires, and what attorneys should evaluate when preparing or challenging expert testimony in Michigan.
The 2024 amendment made two changes especially important to expert admissibility disputes:
The Michigan Supreme Court's staff comment identifies these two changes. The staff comment also states that it is not an authoritative construction by the Court.
An expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The proponent must also demonstrate that it is more likely than not that four requirements are satisfied:
These requirements apply to scientific, technical, and other specialized expertise, not only traditional laboratory science.
Michigan trial courts screened expert testimony for relevance and reliability before the 2024 amendment. Michigan's judicial evidence materials explain that an amendment to MRE 702 effective January 1, 2004 incorporated the reliability principles associated with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The 2024 amendment changed the rule's wording, but Michigan courts were already required to evaluate the reliability of an expert's factual basis, principles and methods, and application to the case.
MRE 702 may not be the only Michigan authority governing expert reliability. In an action for the death of a person or for injury to a person or property, Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2955 sets admissibility requirements for certain scientific opinions.
In determining whether a scientific opinion is reliable and will assist the trier of fact, the court must consider the seven factors listed in MCL 600.2955(1). Michigan courts have recognized, however, that not every factor will necessarily be relevant in every case. They address scientific testing and replication, peer-review publication, generally accepted standards, error rates, general acceptance within the relevant expert community, whether experts in the field would rely on the same basis, and whether experts rely on the opinion or methodology outside litigation.
MCL 600.2955(2) separately provides that a novel methodology or form of scientific evidence may be admitted only if the proponent establishes general scientific acceptance among impartial and disinterested experts in the field.
Not every weakness in expert testimony requires exclusion. MRE 702 establishes the threshold for admissibility, while some limitations in testimony that satisfies the rule may instead affect the weight the factfinder gives the opinion.
Once testimony satisfies MRE 702, weaknesses in an expert's experience, competing interpretations, or other limitations that do not defeat an MRE 702 requirement may, depending on the circumstances, be explored through cross-examination or considered in determining the weight of the testimony. But when a challenge calls into question whether the proponent has satisfied MRE 702's threshold requirements, the court must perform the required admissibility analysis.
Counsel should confirm that the expert's qualifications match the specific issue and identify the facts, data, and important assumptions supporting each material opinion. The expert should also be prepared to explain the analytical steps from the evidence to the conclusion, why the methodology fits the question, how it was applied, and any relevant limitations or uncertainty.
A strong résumé, standing alone, generally does not establish the reliability of the particular opinion under MRE 702. Qualifications and reliability are related but distinct parts of the admissibility inquiry.
What changed in Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 in 2024?
The amendment requires the proponent to show, on a more-likely-than-not basis, that MRE 702's four listed admissibility requirements are satisfied. It also requires the expert's opinion to reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the case facts.
Does Michigan use the Daubert standard?
Yes. Michigan incorporates Daubert-based reliability principles into MRE 702. Depending on the case, Michigan statutes such as MCL 600.2955 may also impose applicable expert-reliability requirements.
Must an expert's methodology be generally accepted?
Not as a universal prerequisite under MRE 702. When MCL 600.2955 applies, general acceptance is one of the factors the court must consider, and subsection (2) separately requires general scientific acceptance for a novel methodology or form of scientific evidence.
Can a highly qualified expert still be excluded?
Yes. Qualifications alone do not satisfy MRE 702. The testimony must also satisfy the rule's requirements concerning helpfulness, factual support, reliable methodology, and reliable application.
Does MRE 702 apply only to scientific experts?
No. The rule expressly covers scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge.
Michigan trial courts screened expert testimony for relevance and reliability before the 2024 amendment. Michigan's judicial evidence materials explain that an amendment to MRE 702 effective January 1, 2004 incorporated the reliability principles associated with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The 2024 amendment changed the rule's wording, but Michigan courts were already required to evaluate the reliability of an expert's factual basis, principles and methods, and application to the case.
MRE 702 may not be the only Michigan authority governing expert reliability. In an action for the death of a person or for injury to a person or property, Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2955 sets admissibility requirements for certain scientific opinions.
In determining whether a scientific opinion is reliable and will assist the trier of fact, the court must consider the seven factors listed in MCL 600.2955(1). Michigan courts have recognized, however, that not every factor will necessarily be relevant in every case. They address scientific testing and replication, peer-review publication, generally accepted standards, error rates, general acceptance within the relevant expert community, whether experts in the field would rely on the same basis, and whether experts rely on the opinion or methodology outside litigation.
MCL 600.2955(2) separately provides that a novel methodology or form of scientific evidence may be admitted only if the proponent establishes general scientific acceptance among impartial and disinterested experts in the field.
Not every weakness in expert testimony requires exclusion. MRE 702 establishes the threshold for admissibility, while some limitations in testimony that satisfies the rule may instead affect the weight the factfinder gives the opinion.
Once testimony satisfies MRE 702, weaknesses in an expert's experience, competing interpretations, or other limitations that do not defeat an MRE 702 requirement may, depending on the circumstances, be explored through cross-examination or considered in determining the weight of the testimony. But when a challenge calls into question whether the proponent has satisfied MRE 702's threshold requirements, the court must perform the required admissibility analysis.
Counsel should confirm that the expert's qualifications match the specific issue and identify the facts, data, and important assumptions supporting each material opinion. The expert should also be prepared to explain the analytical steps from the evidence to the conclusion, why the methodology fits the question, how it was applied, and any relevant limitations or uncertainty.
A strong résumé, standing alone, generally does not establish the reliability of the particular opinion under MRE 702. Qualifications and reliability are related but distinct parts of the admissibility inquiry.
What changed in Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 in 2024?
The amendment requires the proponent to show, on a more-likely-than-not basis, that MRE 702's four listed admissibility requirements are satisfied. It also requires the expert's opinion to reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the case facts.
Does Michigan use the Daubert standard?
Yes. Michigan incorporates Daubert-based reliability principles into MRE 702. Depending on the case, Michigan statutes such as MCL 600.2955 may also impose applicable expert-reliability requirements.
Must an expert's methodology be generally accepted?
Not as a universal prerequisite under MRE 702. When MCL 600.2955 applies, general acceptance is one of the factors the court must consider, and subsection (2) separately requires general scientific acceptance for a novel methodology or form of scientific evidence.
Can a highly qualified expert still be excluded?
Yes. Qualifications alone do not satisfy MRE 702. The testimony must also satisfy the rule's requirements concerning helpfulness, factual support, reliable methodology, and reliable application.
Does MRE 702 apply only to scientific experts?
No. The rule expressly covers scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge.
State by State Expert Witness Rules
State by State Expert Witness Rules