The state of Connecticut follows the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert witness testimony. State v. Porter, 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997). Under this rule, the court should not allow expert testimony until it has determined that the testimony is both “relevant and reliable.” State v. Griffin, 869 A.2d 640 (Conn. 2005). To analyze the relevance and reliability of an expert’s testimony, the court should consider: “([1] whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the scientific theory or technique in question is scientifically valid and … [2] whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Id. In addition, four factors should be considered by the court to determine reliability. Id. Those factors are: “(1) whether it can be, and has been, tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error, including whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; and (4) whether the technique is, in fact, generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.” Id. Other factors that can be considered by the court are the expert’s prestige, the amount of subjective interpretation that goes into explaining the test results, and whether the scientific technique has been used for our-of-court purposes. Id.
