The year 2020 was remarkable in many ways. Perhaps most notable was COVID-19 and the world’s confusion and fear surrounding this unknown, and fatal, we were told, virus. What was safe? How were we to live our lives? We turned to the knowledge of the medical “experts.” Some experts advised quarantining even if you were not sick. Others declared with absolute certainty that those who received the vaccine would never contract the virus. Still others insisted COVID-19 posed little or no threat at all.
Looking back, the conflicting guidance only added to the confusion and fear. It turns out that not every expert is, in fact, an expert.
In the courtroom, expert witnesses are meant to help juries understand complex evidence. In theory, expert testimony should be neutral, fact-based, and reliable. But that raises a critical question: who and what decides who qualifies as an “expert”?
In Missouri, the answer has become increasingly unclear—and that should concern every citizen.
Missouri’s rule governing expert testimony, codified in Revised Statute §490.065.2, was designed to align with Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Missouri amended its statute in 2017 to mirror the federal rule. However, in December 2023, the federal rule was amended to clarify how courts must apply expert evidence standards. Missouri has not yet followed suit.
That matters more than it may seem.
The amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was adopted because trial courts across the country were misapplying the rule. Judges were allowing questionable expert testimony to reach juries under the theory that reliability concerns were merely issues of “weight,” not admissibility. The federal amendment clarified what was always intended: judges must act as gatekeepers and determine—before a jury hears the testimony—whether an expert’s opinion is based on sufficient facts, reliable methods, and a reliable application of those methods to the case.
Credentials alone are not enough.
Under the clarified federal rule, the party offering expert testimony must prove its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. And the court’s gatekeeping role is ongoing. Just because someone is qualified as an expert does not mean every opinion they offer is admissible.
Missouri’s failure to adopt this clarification has led to inconsistent application of §490.065.2. A recent example is Hanshaw v. Crown Equipment Corp., now pending before the Missouri Supreme Court. In that case, a trial court excluded expert testimony after finding it unreliable, only to be reversed on appeal based on the mistaken belief that Missouri law favors admissibility even when reliability is in doubt.
That interpretation is dangerous.
Jurors are not trained to evaluate the scientific validity of expert opinions. Asking them to sort out unreliable or unsupported testimony after it has already been presented is unfair and inappropriate. That responsibility belongs to judges.
The Delaware Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in In re Zantac, explaining that the 2023 federal amendments did not change the law, but clarified it. The amendments were necessary because courts had drifted away from the rule’s core reliability requirements.
Missouri faces the same problem—and the same solution.
Missouri routinely aligns its procedural rules with federal standards. This year alone, the state adopted changes to its class action rules to mirror federal law. Amending §490.065.2 to reflect the clarified language of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 would be consistent with that approach and provide much-needed clarity.
Such an amendment would make clear that judges must determine admissibility before expert testimony reaches a jury, that the burden of proving reliability rests with the party offering the expert, and that experts may not express confidence unsupported by reliable data and methods.
Six states have already adopted this clarification, and more are moving in that direction. Missouri should not be left behind.
To remedy this issue here in Missouri, Senator Jamie Burger has filed SB 918 and Representative Barry Hovis has filed HB 2255.
The lesson of the COVID era is not that expertise is meaningless—but that expertise without accountability can be deeply misleading. Courts exist to separate fact from speculation. Clarifying Missouri’s expert evidence rule would protect juries, strengthen the justice system, and restore confidence that when an “expert” testifies in a Missouri courtroom, the testimony deserves the weight it is given.
Missouri should act. Justice depends on it.
Missouri State Senator
