methodology should be assessed by the trial court as part of its gatekeeper role or instead by the jury in determining the weight to give expert testimony. Courts and commentators have continued to suggest different approaches to the issue. See, e.g., United States v. McCluskey, 954 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1243-55 (D.N.M.2013) (discussing cases); 29 Charles Alan Wright & Victor James Gold, Federal Practice & Procedure § 6266 (1st ed.2014) (distinguishing between “broad” and “narrow” views regarding the scope of the gatekeeping inquiry). ¶ 13 Rule 702(d), however, recognizes that a trial court must consider whether an expert reliably applied the pertinent methodology when expert testimony concerns the facts of a particular case. Cf. Solazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. at 593 ¶¶ 10-11, 325 P.3d at 999 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the rule by its terms forecloses the
holding that expert testimony may be admissible even if not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community provided that it qualifies in some other way as reliable under federal rule of evidence 702 holding that an expert witnesss testimony on an ultimate issue was admissible recognizing that the expert did not specifically testify that the defendant was guilty or that as a matter of law the facts satisfied the applicable legal standard holding that cold expert testimony not based on the facts of a ease may be admissible if it satisfies rule 702ac holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible holding that under fedrevid 702 expert testimony must be reliable to be admissible