Untested pseudoscience should not dictate the outcome of lawsuits. If our courts do not consistently apply rigorous standards to the admissibility of expert testimony, then junk science will infiltrate New Jersey court cases and be presented to jurors as fact. In cases that require specialized knowledge, our courts’ acceptance of bogus concepts into evidence signals to the jurors that they should take it seriously, which can in turn dictate the jury’s verdict and lead to absurd outcomes.

NJCJI has been at the forefront of this important issue. NJCJI’s advocacy in this area includes its involvement as amicus curiae in the New Jersey Supreme Court’s landmark decision in In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J. 340 (2018), which requires a more robust standard for the admission of expert testimony in civil cases. In the federal courts, NJCJI advocated alongside the business community for upcoming changes to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which will clarify the federal courts’ gatekeeping role and the standard it must apply to expert testimony. NJCJI will continue to advocate for consistent application of these important standards by New Jersey’s courts.