WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 398

Requiring a proponent to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that certain specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand evidence before certain qualified witnesses may testify.

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill raises Kansas expert witness admission standards by requiring proponents prove specialized knowledge will likely help fact-finders understand evidence before testimony is permitted.

Enrolled and presented to Governor on Monday, March 30, 2026
#civilprocedureandcivilactions
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 398

Legislative bill overview

SB 398 raises the evidentiary bar for expert witness testimony in Kansas by requiring that proponents first demonstrate it is "more likely than not" that specialized knowledge will actually help the fact-finder understand evidence before certain qualified witnesses can testify. This shifts the burden of proof from the traditional "relevance" standard and applies a higher threshold—akin to a preponderance of evidence standard—before allowing expert testimony.

Why is this important

Expert witness testimony is central to many legal cases, from medical malpractice to criminal trials. This change could significantly limit which experts are allowed to testify, potentially affecting case outcomes and trial strategy. It may increase litigation costs through preliminary hearings and could make it harder for plaintiffs or defendants to present specialized evidence, depending on how broadly the bill's "certain qualified witnesses" language applies.

Potential points of contention

  • Scope ambiguity: The phrase "certain qualified witnesses" is vague—does it apply to all expert witnesses or only specific categories? This could create confusion and inconsistent application across courts.
  • Increased litigation burden: Requiring preliminary demonstrations of relevance adds procedural steps and costs, potentially disadvantaging parties with fewer resources.
  • Conflict with federal standards: Kansas's approach may diverge from federal Rule 702 standards (Daubert), creating confusion for multi-jurisdictional cases and potentially weakening Kansas's competitiveness for complex litigation.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.