What methods or criteria must or may be used to determine whether (i) "soft science" (including a mixtures of soft and hard science) and (ii) non-scientific expertise (including experience-based expertise and experience-based expertise combined with soft science or hard science) is sufficiently reliable to satisfy the requirements under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or comparable State rules for the admissibility of expert evidence?

Cf. United States v. Valuenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 872-873 (1982) (deportation of possible witness did not violate criminal defendant's constitutional right to compulsory process or due process; "To summarize, the responsibility of the Executive Branch faithfully to execute the immigration...The prohibition, grounded in the Compulsory Process Clause, against deliberate government action that deprives a criminal defendant of the relevant and material exculpatory testimony of a witness may effectively limit the government's use of hearsay evidence against a criminal defendant.

Jerden v. Amstutz, 430 F.3d 1231, 1239 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding, in plaintiff spouses' action against defendant neurosurgeon for medical negligence, that the testimony of defendant's surgical assistant about the....The doctrine of curative admissibility does not apply if inadmissible evidence was not initially used by an opponent.

Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, pin? (1995) (in this case Court specifically rejected argument that a prior inconsistent statement is admissible to rehabilitate credibility of a witness e3ven if the prior consistent statement does not rebut a charge of motive to lie or a...If a witness has been impeached by evidence that expressly impliedly charges that the witness is being untruthful because some circumstances or events occurred that caused the witness to be biased or provided the witness with a motive to lie or fabricate, a prior consistent statement may be used in an attempt to rehabilitate the witness only if the prior consistent statement was made before the circumstances or events arose that, it is expressly or impliedly charged, caused the witness to be biased or gave the witness a motive to lie.