The NAM joined with Lockheed Martin Corp., Wyle Laboratories, Inc., Dow Corning Corp. and Goodrich Corp. in an amicus brief in the “Lockheed Litigation Cases.” In this toxic tort litigation, we argued that the lower court judge properly excluded speculative “expert” testimony involving medical causation, and the judge’s authority to do so must be affirmed on appeal. The plaintiffs in this case asked for a much looser standard that would allow a jury to consider certain kinds of expert testimony. We argued that when unreliable expert testimony is admitted, injustice is sure to follow, as it did in the Salem witch trials. Those court decisions were based on ‘expert’ testimony from individuals who insisted they knew a witch when they saw one. If today’s courts are to avoid that kind of hysteria and preserve basic fairness, high standards for logical and reasonable expert testimony must be maintained. Since expert witnesses are allowed to give opinions on subjects that are generally beyond a typical juror’s scope of knowledge, judges must remain as the gatekeepers for our courts, and they should refuse to allow testimony from so-called experts whose theories have not been tested or peer reviewed.
On Nov. 1, 2007, the California Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after a total of four of the seven justices recused themselves from the case. The lower court's decision stands, but was automatically de-published and cannot be cited as precedent without a further order from the court.