The Legal Stuff

Question 1

What is the Frye Standard?

Frye v. United States | 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

Answer 1

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.”

Question 2

Do Federal courts follow the Daubert or Frye standard?

Answer 2

Federal courts follow the Daubert standard.

(States courts are split between the two.)

Question 3

What are the four components of expert testimony required for admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702?

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

What did the December 2023 Amendment of the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 change?

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

What does Federal Rule of Evidence 702 govern?

Answer 5

When the testimony of an expert witness is admissible.

Question 6

What is the Daubert Standard?

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Answer 6

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

Question 6

Do all five criteria in the Daubert standard have to be met for evidence to be admissible?

Answer 6

No.

The ruling explicitly states that the criteria given are meant to flexible, not used as a checklist.

Question 7

Which court case formalized the role of the judge as a gatekeeper in the admissibility of scientific evidence?

Answer 7

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993)

Question 7

In addition to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, what other two cases make up the Daubert Trilogy?

What was the main result of each?

Answer 7

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”

Question 8

Which courts issues both findings of fact and findings of law?

Answer 8

Trial courts (or, courts of original jurisdiction).

Question 9

Do appellate courts typically issue findings of fact or findings of law?

Answer 9

Findings of law. Appellate courts do not typically decide findings of fact.

Question 10

How many federal appellate courts are there?

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

From where is the Confrontation Clause derived?

Answer 11

The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Question 12

What does the Right to Confrontation guarantee?

Answer 12

The right for the accused to confront (and therefore cross-examine) any witness offering testimony against them in a criminal trial.

Question 13

What was the primary result of the decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts?

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

What is hearsay?

Answer 14

An out-of-court statment offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter.

Generally not admissable in court. However, Federal Rule 803 contains a list of specific exceptions, including the Business Records/Public Records exception under which forensic laboratory reports were generally considered to fall under prior to the 2009 Melendez-Diaz decision.

Question 15

What was the main finding in Crawford v. Washington (2004)?

Answer 15

Crawford v. Washington overturned the 1980 Ohio v. Roberts ruling. The Robert’s decision held that evidence could be introduced without a witness’ presence for cross examination under the two-pronged ‘necessary and reliable’ test. 1) Is the evidence necessary and is the declarant unavailable? 2) Does the evidence show ‘indica of reliability’?

Crawford v. Washington overturned this and ruled that “where testimonial statements are at issue” the Sixth Amendment demands confrontation. Evidence could only be entered without the presence of the declarant if the declarant was unavailable AND the defense had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant at a preliminary hearing.

Importantly for us forensic scientists, Crawford did not define what counted as a testimonial statement.

Question 16

What is a “notice and demand” statute?

Does this satisfy the Confrontation Clause requirement according to Melendez-Diaz?

Answer 16

A ‘notice and demand statute’ is when the prosecution can provide notice to the defendant of their intent to use an analyst’s report at trial with a (legally-defined) period in which defendant may object and require analyst’s live presence at trial. If objection is not made within that time, then the report can be submitted without requiring the analyst to be there for cross-examination.

Yes, this satisfies Melendez-Diaz because it is only restricting the time in which the objection can be made, not the ability to make it.

Question 17

What two post-Melendez cases restricted who can testify to a report other than the analyst to produced it?

Answer 17

Bullcoming v. New Mexico (2011) and Williams v. Illinois (2012)

Bullcoming held that Confrontation Clause requires the in-court testimony of a person who signed the certification, or personally performed or observed the test reported in the certification (i.e., not just another analyst qualified in the area).

Williams held that a report can be introduced if the testifying witness is using it to form and explain their own opinions, but not testifying to the report itself and how it proves the facts of the case.

Question 18

What nonsense does the court (appear) to say in the Smith v. Arizona (2024) opinion?

Answer 18

“Held: When an expert conveys an absent analyst’s statements in support of the expert’s opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth.”

The Smith decision appears to state that, in most cases, the original analyst who performed the casework is the only individual who can testify without the accused’s Right to Confrontation being violated, (unless their opinion can be reached without the forensic report being true??)

Question 19

From which Constitutional Amendment do we derive the Due Process Clause?

Answer 19

The Fourteenth Amendment

Question 20

What is the main finding in Brady v. Maryland?

Answer 20

Prosecutors must disclose material, exculpatory information in the government’s possession to the defense.

Question 21

How do we define Brady Material?

Answer 21

Any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant’s potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt.

Question 22

What is the primary holding in United States v. Bagley (1985)?

Answer 22

It held that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose any material, favorable information in their possession regardless of whether it is requested.

Question 23

Does a Brady violation have to be knowing and/or intentional?

Answer 23

No.

Under Bagley, a Brady violation can occur regardless of whether the information is withheld intentionally or unintentionally.