MBE Rules · Evidence
Expert Opinion Basis
FRE 703
The rule
An expert may rely on inadmissible facts if experts in the field reasonably rely on such data, but the inadmissible basis may be disclosed to the jury only if its probative value in evaluating the opinion substantially outweighs prejudice.
In plain English
Experts can use information that isn't normally allowed in court if it's something that other experts in their field would reasonably consider. However, if this information is shared with the jury, it must be shown that its usefulness in understanding the expert's opinion is much greater than any potential harm it could cause.
Worked example
In a medical malpractice case, a doctor testifies as an expert and relies on a study that was not admitted into evidence. The jury is informed of the study only after the court determines that the study's relevance to the doctor's opinion significantly outweighs any negative impact it might have on the case. As a result, the jury can consider the study when evaluating the doctor's testimony.
Memory hook
Experts can use the 'inadmissible' if it's 'reasonable'!
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where students mistakenly believe that any reliance on inadmissible facts automatically disqualifies the expert's opinion, overlooking the reasonableness standard.
How examiners test it
Questions often involve a hypothetical expert witness who relies on inadmissible information, testing the candidate's understanding of when such reliance is permissible and how it should be disclosed to the jury.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.