Makita Standard
Definition
The Australian admissibility standard from Makita (Australia) v. Sprowles (2001): the expert must identify the facts and assumptions underlying the opinion, the opinion must follow logically from them, and unstated assumptions may render the opinion inadmissible.
- Origin case
- Makita (Australia) v. Sprowles, 2001
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Core requirement
- Expert must identify facts and assumptions relied on
- Consequence of failure
- Unstated assumptions can make the opinion inadmissible
Common questions
How does the Makita standard compare to the Daubert standard used in the US?+
Daubert focuses on the reliability of the underlying scientific methodology, while Makita focuses on whether the expert has transparently disclosed the factual basis and assumptions behind the opinion, so the reasoning can be tested.
Why can an unstated assumption make an otherwise sound expert opinion inadmissible under Makita?+
If the court cannot see the chain of facts and assumptions the expert relied on, it cannot assess whether the opinion actually follows from evidence properly before it, which undermines the opinion's evidentiary value.
Related terms
- Daubert Standard
- The US federal evidentiary standard (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993) requiring that expert testimony be based on scientifically valid methods with...
- FRE 702
- Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the US statutory basis for expert testimony admissibility. Amended in 2000 and again in 2023 to reflect...
- Frye Standard
- The US legal test for admissibility of scientific evidence, originating from Frye v. United States (1923), which required that a technique be...
- Gatekeeping
- The judicial function, codified in the United States by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, of...
- Kumho Tire Extension
- The 1999 US Supreme Court decision that applied the Daubert gatekeeping obligation to all expert testimony, not only scientific testimony. After Kumho,...