Admission Standards Flashcards
What is the Frye standard?
It was a standard for expert opinions’ admissibility. The general acceptance test: when evidence becomes generally accepted in its field, it becomes admissible in court.
Where is/was the Frye standard used?
This was the federal standard for 70+ years.
What is the Daubert standard?
The trial court judge is the gatekeeper and determines whether the scientific evidence is admissible by examining four factors: (1) Capable of being tested/has been tested? (2) Subjected to peer review/publications? (3) Known or error rate & standards? (4) Generally accepted? This is Frye incorporated into the four factors.
Where is/was the Daubert standard used?
It applies to all expert testimony (not just scientific testimony). It is the federal standard for expert opinions’ admissibility.
What is the Daubert trilogy?
(1) Daubert (SC 1993); (2) GE v. Joiner (SC 1997): the reviewing court must apply abuse of discretion standard to the trial court’s ruling regarding the admission or exclusion of expert testimony; and (3) Kumho Tire (SC 1999): Daubert’s four factors apply to all expert testimony, not just scientific testimony.
What is the Kelly standard?
Evidence is admissible if it is sufficiently established, such that it has gained general acceptance in the particular field (it’s Frye).
Where is/was the Kelly standard used?
It applies to expert testimony when the testimony is based in whole or in part on a technique, process, or theory which is new to science, and even more so, to the law. Cowan (Cal. 2010). It is the California standard for expert opinions’ admissibility, and was upheld in Leahy (Cal. 1994). It is reviewed de novo on appeal. Once an appellate decision has affirmed admission of a scientific technique, its general acceptance is established as a matter of law, and further hearings are unnecessary unless new evidence is presented reflecting a change in the attitude of the scientific community. Doolin (Cal. 2009).
What is Sargon and how did it change Kelly?
A 2012 California Supreme Court civil case that seemed to Daubert-ize Kelly. The court held that the trial court has the duty to act as a gatekeeper to exclude speculative expert testimony, and the trial court’s decision is to be reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard.
What is Melendez-Diaz?
A Supreme Court case about the confrontation clause. The Court held that forensic analysts’ affidavits are testimonial under the 6th Amendment.
What effect did Melendez-Diaz have on the admission of forensic evidence?
Left a lot of confusion – just what is a testimonial statement? The courts have been trying to figure this out, and so has the Supreme Court itself.
How do Bullcoming and Williams affect a Melendez-Diaz analysis?
They help explain what is permissible. If the prosecution wants use a report to prove an element of the charged offense, the report must be presented by the person who wrote the report or performed the test. Bullcoming (cannot call a supervisor or other surrogate witness to the stand in place of the report’s actual author). If the prosecution wants to use an expert witness’ testimony who relied on a scientific or forensic report performed by a non-testifying expert, the person who wrote the report or performed the test does not need to testify. Williams (don’t have to introduce the lab report itself that the expert based his/her opinion on, and if the lab report is not introduced, the person who wrote the report or performed the test doesn’t have to testify).
