In reading Malihi’s ruling, he appears to be explaining that Ms Taitz failed to “Daubert qualify” her expert witnesses. Without Daubert rules compliance, testimony and evidence offered by expert witnesses can’t be considered to be a finding of fact by a trier of fact. I was introduced to the Daubert rules during my Texas child custody jury trial in 2001 (I won after 19 hours of deliberation) right after the SCOTUS ruling establishing the Daubert standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
quote
In 2000, Rule 702 was amended in an attempt to codify and structure elements embodied in the “Daubert trilogy.” The rule now reads as follows:
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
(As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000.)
Daubert, Shmaubert.
So Orly’s evidence was insufficient and the defendant’s evidence was completely missing. Upon what evidence, then, did the judge make his decision?
Did he flip a coin?