AAPL Landmark: Expert Testimony Flashcards
What was the ruling in Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (1923)?
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals found that a given scientific principle, from which an expert’s testimony is deduced, “must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field.” This created the “Frye Test” or “general acceptance” test.
What was the ruling in State v. Hurd, 414 A.2D 291 (1980)?
New Jersey courts ruled that hypnotically refreshed testimony by a victim could be admissible in NJ under the Frye standard on a case-by-case basis, and that the state has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence to establish its reliability. In addition, the court adopted six standards that must be met for admissibility.
What was the ruling in People vs. Shirley, 723 P.2D 1354 (1982)?
The California SC ruled, contrary to State v. Hurd, that hypnotically refreshed testimony did not meet the Frye standard and could not be admissible in court.
What was the ruling in Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987)?
Arkansas’ blank rule barring a defendant’s hypnotically refreshed testimony violated the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. Hypnotically refreshed testimony would be admitted on a case-by-case basis.
What was the ruling under Daubert v. Merrell Down Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)?
The Frye test had been superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence (1975).
What are the guidelines established for scientific testimony in Daubert v. Merrell?
1) Are the methods and/or rationale scientifically valid?
2) Has the theory been subject to peer review or publication?
3) Can or has the theory been tested?
4) What is the theory’s or techniques known or potential error rate?
5) Are there standards that related to the technique?
6) Is there wide-spread acceptance of the technique in the scientific community?
What was the ruling in General Electric v. Joiner, 522, U.S. 136 (1997)?
(Employee exposed to PCBs developed small cell lung cancer)
“Abuse of discretion” (a judge’s failure to properly consider a fact or law), the standard ordinarily applicable to review of evidentiary rulings, is the proper standard by which to review a district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert scientific evidence.
What was the ruling of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)?
(defective tire mfg.)
The USSC ruled that all expert evidence is subject to judicial gatekeeping, and that the Daubert guidelines applied to both scientific and unscientific evidence.
What was the ruling in Buck v. Davis, 137 S. CT. 759, 197 L. ED. 2D 1 (2017)?
(Race of the killer in risk assessment)
The finder of fact cannot consider race of a defendant in determining future dangerousness for purposes of sentencing.
