-313-
reliable foundation and is relevant. In Kumho Tire Co. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149 (1999), the Supreme Court extended
this requirement to all expert matters described in Rule 702,
Fed. R. Evid.214 Under Daubert and Kumho Tire Co., a trial court
bears a “special gatekeeping obligation” to ensure that any and
all expert testimony is relevant and reliable. Caracci v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 379, 393 (2002). In exercising this
function, trial judges have “considerable leeway in deciding in a
particular case how to go about determining whether particular
expert testimony is reliable.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
supra at 152; see also Haarhuis v. Kunnan Enters., Ltd., 177 F.3d
1007, 1014-1015 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
1. Mr. Crawford
Mr. Crawford is a certified public accountant and a lead tax
services partner at Deloitte & Touche. He has 20 years’ tax
experience relating to acquisitions, mergers, reorganizations,
and other complex corporate/entity transactions. From 1990 to
2002, Mr. Crawford served as a member of Arthur Andersen’s
National Mergers and Acquisitions and Subchapter C Team.
214 Although Daubert and Kumho Tire Co. provide a hurdle for
the admissibility of expert testimony, the Federal Rules of
Evidence continue to provide a liberal standard for the
admissibility of expert testimony. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 588 (1993); United States v.
Dukagjini, 326 F.3d 45, 57 (2d Cir. 2003).
Page: Previous 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011