Georgia Expert Witness Statute (O.C.G.A. 24-7-702): Daubert Rules

Georgia’s expert witness statute, O.C.G.A. 24-7-702, allows a qualified expert to give opinion testimony only when the opinion rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable principles and methods, and applies those methods correctly to the facts of the case. The statute directs Georgia courts to look to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., General Electric Co. v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael when applying those requirements, which puts the trial judge in the role of gatekeeper.¹

The current framework dates to HB 24, which took effect on January 1, 2013, and rewrote Georgia’s evidence code to track Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The legislature stated its intent directly in the statute: Georgia courts should not be seen as open to expert evidence that would be excluded elsewhere.¹

The Three Admissibility Requirements

Once a witness is qualified, the testimony itself must clear three hurdles:

The opinion rests on sufficient facts or data, not speculation.
The expert uses principles and techniques that are demonstrably sound.
Those methods are applied correctly to the specific facts of the case.

To evaluate reliability, Georgia judges use the factors from Daubert: whether the theory or technique can be tested, whether it has been peer reviewed, its known or potential error rate, whether standards control its operation, and whether it has gained general acceptance in the relevant field.¹ These are guideposts. The judge has discretion to weigh them based on the type of expertise at issue, and a technique can fail the reliability test even when the expert offering it holds impressive credentials.

Who Qualifies as an Expert

Under the statute, a witness may qualify as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. No particular degree or license is required across the board. An electrician with decades on the job may qualify to opine on wiring failures just as readily as a Ph.D. engineer, if that experience fits the question the case actually presents. What the court is looking for is a specific fit between the witness’s background and the disputed issue, plus testimony that will genuinely help the factfinder.¹

Stricter Rules in Medical Malpractice Cases

Subsection (c) tightens the qualification standard when the expert will testify about the standard of care in a medical malpractice action. That expert must have been licensed to practice in the state where they worked or taught at the time of the alleged malpractice. And they must have had hands-on professional knowledge in the relevant specialty, shown by actively practicing or teaching in that area for at least three of the five years immediately preceding the alleged malpractice.¹

This is where many malpractice cases quietly succeed or fail. A retired surgeon who has not operated in six years is a natural target for a subsection (c) challenge, and the judge’s ruling on “sufficient frequency” can end the case before a jury ever hears from the expert.

How the Court Decides: Voir Dire and Daubert Hearings

Two procedures test whether a proposed expert clears the statute. At trial, the offering attorney walks the witness through their background — education, work history, publications, memberships, and relevant experience — after which opposing counsel cross-examines the witness on those same points through a procedure called voir dire. At the end, the offering attorney asks the court to accept the witness as an expert, and the judge rules.

Voir dire is not a formality. A cross-examiner will test whether the witness’s actual experience matches the opinions the witness plans to offer. An engineer who has designed bridges may not be qualified to testify about a building collapse, even though both involve structural analysis.

Before trial, either side can move in limine to exclude the expert. Grounds include unreliable methods, insufficient factual basis, lack of qualifications in the specific area, or the risk that the testimony would unfairly prejudice the jury. The statute expressly authorizes pretrial hearings to determine whether the proposed expert qualifies and whether the testimony meets the reliability requirements, and in civil cases that hearing and any ruling must be completed no later than the final pretrial conference.¹ The burden falls on the side offering the expert to show the testimony is both reliable and relevant.

What the Expert May Rely On and Testify About

Bases of Opinion

Under O.C.G.A. 24-7-703, an expert can rely on facts perceived firsthand or made known to them before the hearing. The underlying data does not have to be independently admissible, as long as experts in that field would reasonably rely on that type of information.²

There is a catch. If the underlying data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent cannot disclose it to the jury unless the judge decides its value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice. That rule stops parties from using an expert as a backdoor for otherwise inadmissible material.

Ultimate Issue Opinions

Georgia generally allows an expert to state an opinion that goes to the ultimate question in the case. An accident reconstruction expert can testify that a driver was negligent, and O.C.G.A. 24-7-704(a) makes clear that an otherwise admissible opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces the final issue.³

There is one important carve-out in criminal cases. No expert may state whether the defendant actually had the mental state that is an element of the crime or of a defense. A psychiatrist can describe a diagnosis and explain how it affects behavior, but cannot say the defendant lacked intent to kill. That conclusion is reserved for the jury.³

How Experts Are Disclosed in Georgia

Georgia’s disclosure rules differ from the federal system in a way that trips up attorneys crossing over from federal court. Under O.C.G.A. 9-11-26(b)(4), a party can use interrogatories to require the opposing side to identify each expert it expects to call at trial, the subject matter of the expected testimony, the substance of the facts and opinions the expert will offer, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.⁴

Georgia does not require the detailed written expert reports that federal courts demand under Rule 26(a)(2)(B).⁵ Practitioners accustomed to federal practice sometimes assume those report obligations carry over to state court. They do not.

Either side can depose the opposing expert under the rules that apply to any other witness. The party taking the deposition must pay a reasonable fee for the expert’s time, and either side can ask the court to determine whether the fee charged is reasonable.⁴

Court-Appointed Experts

Georgia judges can appoint their own experts independent of either party. Under O.C.G.A. 24-7-706, the court can act on its own or on a party’s motion, and may ask both sides to nominate candidates. The court can appoint someone the parties agree on or select an expert on its own, and the appointed expert must consent.⁶

The expert is informed of their duties in writing and must share findings with all parties. Either side can depose the expert, and either side or the court can call the expert to testify at trial. Every party gets to cross-examine the court-appointed expert, including the party that called them. The court may tell the jury that it appointed the expert, though this is discretionary.⁶

Compensation is set by the judge. In criminal cases and civil condemnation proceedings, funds come from sources provided by law. In other civil cases, the court directs the parties to split the cost in whatever proportion it deems appropriate, and those costs are later treated like other case expenses. Appointing a court expert does not prevent either party from calling its own.⁶

What Happens When Disclosure Rules Are Broken

In criminal cases, O.C.G.A. 17-16-6 gives the judge a range of options when a party fails to disclose an expert as required. The court can order disclosure, grant the other side a continuance, or — if the failure was both prejudicial and in bad faith — prohibit the party from calling the undisclosed expert altogether.⁷

The prejudice-and-bad-faith requirement matters. Courts do not automatically exclude an expert because disclosure was late. The opposing side must show real surprise or disadvantage and that the failure was intentional rather than inadvertent. In civil cases, trial courts have broad inherent authority to fashion sanctions, ranging from exclusion to continuances to adverse inference instructions.

An expert who provides false testimony under oath faces potential federal perjury charges. Conviction carries a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.⁸

1
Justia. Georgia Code 24-7-702 – Expert Opinion Testimony; Medical Experts
2
Justia. Georgia Code 24-7-703 – Bases of Expert Opinion Testimony
3
Justia. Georgia Code 24-7-704 – Ultimate Issue Opinion
4
Justia. Georgia Code 9-11-26 – General Provisions Governing Discovery
5
Legal Information Institute. Rule 26 – Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
6
FindLaw. Georgia Code 24-7-706 – Court-Appointed Experts
7
Justia. Georgia Code 17-16-6 – Failure to Comply With Discovery
8
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1621 – Perjury Generally