{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020103761348897537, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010376134889753566, 'mean_word_length': 4.957528957528957, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Admissibility of Expert Testimony

The first case that dealt with the criteria for admissibility of expert testimony was Frye v. U.S., a 1923 case that described the need for the expert’s theory or methodology to be ‘generally accepted’ in the relevant scientific community. This was the most widely used standard until the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975 which stressed the idea of an expert having specific knowledge that would assist the judge or jury in making a decision; knowledge that a lay person would not have. Further, the information had to be reasonably relied upon by other experts in the same field. One thing not discussed in these rules was the definition of “reasonably relied upon” and this laid the groundwork for the Daubert criteria which were discussed by the United States Supreme Court in 1993. It described the criteria for accepting scientific testimony, and while it made reference to other forms of expert testimony, it did not discuss those criteria. In 1999, The USSC expanded on Daubert with Kumho, noting that the criteria enumerated in Daubert were only guidelines, and discussed criteria for non-scientific testimony which was called ‘experience based’. Throughout several of these cases, there was discussion of whether experts were allowed to address the ‘ultimate legal issue’ Some practitioners believed that it was acceptable practice; the law originally indicated that the expert could not, but later suggested that an expert could address some of the elements of the ultimate issue.