Building the Daubert challenge against opposing experts.

An opposing expert’s opinion travels only as far as its method survives. When the edition opens, Justine will assemble a Daubert pre-read on each defense expert — weighing their prior testimony and peer-reviewed record against the field’s accepted methods. She is designed to surface where an opinion outruns its support: a prior deposition disclaiming the very technique relied on here, a published paper that undercuts the error-rate assumption. Every cited authority is grounded against a verifiable source on CourtListener, never invented, and assembled into a challenge outline the attorney decides whether to file.

What MM is designed to do.

1. 01

   Justine is designed to compile each opposing expert’s prior testimony and publication record, then measure the opinion offered here against the accepted methods of the field — surfacing the methodological gaps a Daubert or Frye challenge turns on.

2. 02

   Self-contradiction will be a first-class signal: a prior deposition in which the same expert disclaimed the technique they now rely on, or a peer-reviewed paper of theirs that undercuts the error-rate or general-acceptance assumption in this case.

3. 03

   Every authority Justine cites — the controlling reliability standard, the comparable exclusion order, the impeaching transcript — will be grounded against a verifiable source on CourtListener, reasoned from real law and never invented.

4. 04

   The same lens will run on the firm own retained experts, so the attorney sees where a friendly opinion is exposed to challenge before it is disclosed, not after the motion to exclude lands.

5. 05

   The output will be a challenge pre-read assembled as attorney-attested work product — the gaps, the impeachment sequence, and the supporting authority — with the attorney deciding what is briefed and what is conceded.

The AI reasons; the attorney decides.