The Legal Stuff Flashcards
What is the Frye Standard?
Frye v. United States | 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
The ‘Frye standard’ states that an expert opinion is admissible if the scientific technique, procedure, or principle in question is “generally accepted” by the relevant scientific community.
“Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”
Do Federal courts follow the Daubert or Frye standard?
Federal courts follow the Daubert standard.
(States courts are split between the two.)
What are the four components of expert testimony required for admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702?
1) The evidence must help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.
2) The evidence must be based in fact or data.
3) The evidence must the product of reliable methods or principles.
4) The expert opinion must reflect a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case.
What did the December 2023 Amendment of the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 change?
1) It clarified that the proponent of the expert witness is responsible for proving admissibility by a preponderance of evidence.
2) It instructs judges to give more consideration to whether an expert’s final opinion, not just the methods and principles underlying it, is reliable.
What does Federal Rule of Evidence 702 govern?
When the testimony of an expert witness is admissible.
What is the Daubert Standard?
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
The court suggested five criteria for judges to determine reliability and relevance of evidence:
1. Whether the theory in question can be and has been tested
2. Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication
3. Its known or potential error rate
4. The existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation
5. Whether it is widely accepted in the relevant scientific community
Do all five criteria in the Daubert standard have to be met for evidence to be admissible?
No.
The ruling explicitly states that the criteria given are meant to flexible, not used as a checklist.
Which court case formalized the role of the judge as a gatekeeper in the admissibility of scientific evidence?
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993)
In addition to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, what other two cases make up the Daubert Trilogy?
What was the main result of each?
General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997) - The ruling affirmed that appellate courts may review whether trial courts abused their discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony.
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) - Ruled that the Daubert standard applies to all expert testimony, not just “scientific”
Which courts issues both findings of fact and findings of law?
Trial courts (or, courts of original jurisdiction).
Do appellate courts typically issue findings of fact or findings of law?
Findings of law. Appellate courts do not typically decide findings of fact.
How many federal appellate courts are there?
Thirteen federal appellate courts, plus the Supreme Court.
Twelve of the federal appellate courts are regional and the thirteenth (The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) takes cases based on jurisdiction, primarily patent and trademark cases and those in which the United States or its agencies are a defendant.
From where is the Confrontation Clause derived?
The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution.
What does the Right to Confrontation guarantee?
The right for the accused to confront (and therefore cross-examine) any witness offering testimony against them in a criminal trial.
What was the primary result of the decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts?
Forensic reports are testimonial affidavits, not hearsay that would fall under the business records exemption, and analysts are therefore subject to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
