Florida justices will hear arguments Tuesday in a closely watched case about which evidence standard the state's courts should use to admit expert opinions.

The civil and criminal defense bar supports the Daubert standard, which requires a trial judge to ensure the relevance and reliability of scientific testimony or evidence.

“It will keep junk science out of the courtroom,” said Jacksonville attorney Kansas Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, who leads the amicus committee of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association. Daubert is used in all federal and most state courts.

But plaintiffs attorneys want Florida to keep the long-used Frye standard, which only asks the court to look at new or novel evidence to make sure it's based on generally accepted science.

The Daubert standard gives the trial judge “wide latitude” to determine admissibility of expert testimony. That latitude is often abused, said Miami attorney Jim Ferraro of the Ferraro Law Firm, who will argue for the petitioners Tuesday.

“It's been used to exclude people from court more often than not,” Ferraro said.

Tuesday's case, DeLisle v. Crane, marks the first time the Florida Supreme Court will directly consider adopting the Daubert standard, which was passed by the Florida Legislature in 2013. Last year, the court declined to adopt the amendment, finding a rule change would raise constitutional concerns, including access to justice that “must be left for a proper case or controversy.”

Richard DeLisle filed an asbestos lawsuit against Crane Co., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and several other defendants in 2013, just before the Legislature passed the Daubert amendment.

He won an $8 million verdict linking his mesothelioma to the defendants' products. But the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the judge should have excluded some expert testimony under Daubert.

DeLisle's attorneys argue the Daubert amendment is invalid because it's up to the Florida Supreme Court, not the Legislature, to determine court rules of procedure. Ferraro said the amendment came from a corporate-friendly, conservative statehouse and takes power out of the hands of juries to determine the reliability of evidence, giving it to a judge instead.

“When you get a collective group of six people together, you're more likely to get the correct answer than one person who went to law school,” Ferraro said.

The Florida Justice Association representing plaintiffs lawyers added in an amicus brief that the amendment would cause ”unwarranted delays, costs, and expenses in the administration of justice in every kind of case.”

“These delays, costs, and expenses will be borne not only by the courts but also by the litigants, and will tend to have the most adverse impact on those who lack financial resources,” the association wrote.

The respondents argue Daubert is constitutional and more flexible than Frye.

In the Daubert case, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 “liberalized the Frye standard by giving trial judges the authority to admit otherwise reliable scientific evidence even absent some showing of 'general acceptance,' ” Crane's attorneys wrote in a brief.

Richard Doran of Ausley McMullen in Tallahassee will argue on behalf of Crane, and Elliot Scherker of Greenberg Traurig in Miami will argue for R.J. Reynolds. Both respondents' attorneys declined to comment.

Defense attorneys on the civil and criminal sides also wrote to the court to support Daubert. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argued the Frye standard, which dates back to 1923, has led to wrongful convictions because it allows for ”flawed scientific evidence,” including bite mark analysis, hair microscopy and dog scent identification.

Gooden of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association said courts across the country have found Daubert does not affect consumers' right to a jury trial. She argues using a standard consistent with other states would prevent forum shopping in Florida.

“I don't believe that there's any access-to-court situation,” she said. “I believe Daubert levels the playing field. It provides stability in the law.”

The Florida Supreme Court will make the ultimate call after hearing Tuesday's arguments.

“I think it'll be close, one way or the other,” Ferraro said.