Daubert vs. Frye Expert testimony in legal proceedings has been a subject of heated arguments of late; because of there have been numerous instances where scientific evidence has been misrepresented and fabricated to send innocent defendants to prison. The Frye standard served the purpose of general acceptance of scientific evidence was admissible in courts. However, the Criminal Justice system received a shock in 1993 when the Supreme Court gave the verdict that Frye test was insufficient as the general acceptance of scientific evidence. The Daubert vs. Merryl Dow case determined that Frye is no longer satisfactory to be admissible as scientific evidence; moreover, the Daubert test surpasses Frye, concerning the admissibility of scientific
Kenneth Edelin was a 35 year old third year medical resident at the Boston City Hospital. This hospital was known for many poor coming into it. This was also a place for research. By this time research was still being conducted on fetuses and embryos. When a patient came to the hospital for an abortion she also signed a waiver for them to test on her. They called her “Alice Roe” and she was only 17 years old but had the consent of her mother to proceed with the abortion.This patient was estimated by the supervisor over the residents, Hugh Holtrop, to be about twenty-two weeks pregnant but the other residents Enrique Giminez and Steve Teich disagreed. They estimated that she was about twenty-four weeks pregnant. Edlein was put in charge of doing the
The Dread Scott decision exacerbated the debate over slavery by declaring that blacks cannot be citizens and that Congress does not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, which further divided the North and the South. The decision also deeply affected politics, and was one of the causes of the Civil War.
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
All diseases and disorders are categorized by a set of symptoms, or signs that are indicative of certain diseases or disorders. Thus, symptoms are important when diagnosing a person. They serve as a communication tool between the clinical psychologist and the client. When detecting symptoms of a person, it allows the clinician to understand the client’s physical, emotional, and mental discomforts. Using the symptoms reported by the client, the clinician can then determine what the client’s clinical diagnosis is.
The Cameron Hooker case illustrated that when it comes to expert testimony more than just the testimony itself that is important. The credibility of the expert witness and how they are perceived by the judge and jury is equally as important as the information they are sharing.
Nearly every aspect of law enforcement has a court decision that governs criteria. Most court rulings are the result of civil lawsuit towards a police officer and agency. However, currently, there is no law that mandates law enforcement driver training. When it comes to firearms, negligence by officers has resulted in a multitude of court rulings. Popow v. City of Margate, 1979, is a particularly interesting case that outlines failed firearms training by an agency. In this case, an officer chasing a suspect during a foot pursuit fired at the suspect, striking and killing an innocent bystander (Justia.com, 2017). The court ruled that the agency was “grossly negligent” of “failure to train” (Justia.com, 2017). As a result, nearly every agency requires annual firearms training and has written policy concerning the same. Officers must show proficiency in firearms use every year to maintain their certification. Many states even impose fines on officers for
Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf
March 30, 1981 was a peaceful day. President Ronald Reagan was walking outside enjoying the fresh air when suddenly shots were fired. Six shots were fired in total, but only one shot hit Reagan due to a bullet that ricocheted. Luckily, Reagan was hit in the abdomen; therefore, he survived. The “mastermind” behind the attempted assassination was a man named John Hinckley. Hinckley believed by going through with this assassination it would be a romantic scenario for himself to confess his undying love for the actress Jodie Foster. Before long it was time for the Hinckley trial and after hearing his side of the story, the jury came to the conclusion that he was crazy. Hinckley was later found not guilty by reason of insanity and admitted to
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
The book, Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee (Dee Goong An), takes place in China, during the Tang dynasty. The Tang dynasty took place from 618-907 CE and included both Confucian and Legalist influences. Located in the Province of Shantung, is the town district called Chang-Ping, where Dee Goong An served as the town 's magistrate. A magistrate is a judge, detective, and peacekeeper who captures criminals and is responsible for their punishments. The people of China looked at magistrates as the "mother and father" of their town. Magistrates received a large amount of respect from the people due to the amount of authority and power they had. With so many people relying on him to make their home
One court decision that has influenced fire scene investigations was Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. “In the case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Court placed the responsibility on a trial judge to ensure that expert testimony was not only relevant but also reliable” (Icove, De Haan, & Haynes, 2013, p. 19). With regards to scene investigations, the permissibility of expert science and professional opinions are currently more admissible in a court of law than in historical cases. The acceptance of fire investigation has placed more of the burden on professional testaments based on scientific facts rather than information that is simply experienced based. The Daubert criterion is a foundation for evaluating the permissibility of scientific expert testimony and includes testing, peer review and publication, error rates and professional standards, and general acceptance. The testability criterion decides if there is truth of falseness to the concept, method, or practice. Another phase of the Daubert criterion is to determine if the concept, method, or practice has been peer reviewed or publicized. The third stage includes identified error rates and professional standards and takes in account the compliance with current standards and the maintenance of those
“Modern life had become too complex for ordinary householders to get along with the help of experts.” During the trial, Clarence Darrow saw his defense as a “vehicle for affecting the public,” one that which had little opportunity of winning, but in due course tooks it’s affect among those who heard his argument. Mr. Darrow, in a risky move, brought in outside experts to testify which, “was not only an affront to local pride but a relatively risky new procedure in law.” The times changing, with technology and scientology among other things, saw the need for the everyday person to have his/her life explained to them by an expert. The case changed a lot of the purpose of a normal person being able to consider complex thoughts and discriminate logical possibilities without a broken down explanation.
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.