Methodological deficiencies in the expert testimony of forensic accountants : a qualitative content analysis of judicial statements pertaining to Daubert exclusions

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this research was to examine the methodological factors that judges perceive as reasons for excluding the expert testimony of forensic accountants in order to map this rationale onto the Daubert standard.

Methodology: A case study research design using a qualitative content analysis of 34 federal cases involving methodological violations of the Daubert standard was selected. Open and axial coding was applied to the judicial statements to ascertain the general themes as well as the specific categories that constituted those themes.

Findings: Judges primarily excluded testimony based on deficiencies in evidence, methods, and reasoning. Deficiencies in evidence and method were isomorphic with the Daubert standard, whereas deficiencies in reasoning were unique to this analysis. Further, these thematic categories were interconnected in ways not explicitly expressed in the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Originality/Value: This study provided a detailed understanding of how judges understood methodological deficiencies when applying the Daubert standard in order to exclude the testimony of forensic accountants. Practical insights on what forensic accountants should focus on when analyzing their own methodological concerns is obtained.