What must a judge prove under the Daubert guidelines before accepting scientific evidence?

The Daubert guidelines require that the judge assess whether the scientific evidence presented is both relevant and reliable. This means that the judge must evaluate if the technique or theory behind the evidence is scientifically sound and whether it can be applied to the specific facts of the case.

In practice, this involves considering several factors: whether the theory has been tested, subjected to peer review, and has a known error rate, along with whether it is generally accepted within the scientific community. This standard ensures that the evidence is not only applicable to the case at hand but also adheres to scientific rigor.

The other options reflect misconceptions about the requirements under Daubert. Proving that evidence is sensational does not factor into its admissibility; instead, the focus is on scientific integrity. There is no requirement for a guarantee of clarity, as evidence can still be complex yet valid. Lastly, validation by two independent sources is not a stipulation of the Daubert criteria. The emphasis is on the principles of the scientific method rather than on validation by specific numbers of sources.