Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals are both legal decisions that set forth standards as they pertain to the admissibility of scientific or forensic evidence, and the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Both cases deal with the admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings, and prevent prosecutors from abusing the use of expert witnesses and testimony. Due to a loophole that dismisses recent scientific advances when applying the Frye Rule, the Supreme Court revisited Frye, and “took the occasion to issue guidelines for deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence” (Gaensslen, Harris, & Henry, 2008, p. 53). The decision resulted in a five-prong approach called the Daubert Standard. Case of Frye v. …show more content…
Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals where the petitioners claimed that their children were born with birth defects due to “the mother’s ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription antinausea drug marketed by respondent” (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993). In Daubert, the lower court applied the Frye Standard to the testimony of eight expert witnesses presented as evidence by the petitioner. The court excluded that the testimony, and findings of the eight expert witnesses presenting on behalf of the petitioners did not meet the Frye Standard because the results “had not been published or subjected to peer review” (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993), or accepted by the relevant scientific community. In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court decided that since the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded the Frye Standard in 1975, the lower court did not properly apply the Frye Standard. The decision in Daubert sets forth a five-prong approach called the Daubert Standard that evaluates scientific evidence against five factors. The five factors the court must consider are whether the theory or technique “can be and has been tested”; subject to peer review and publication, the potential rate of error, the existence of standards, and acceptance within the relevant scientific community (Fish, Miller, Braswell, & Wallace Jr., 2014, p. 22). Daubert also assigns …show more content…
Frye is a simple decision where if the scientific community does not generally accept the evidence, the court excludes and rejects the evidence. No questions asked. In contrast to Frye, Daubert offers a remedy to the hole left by the Frye decision to not allow evidence not “generally accepted” by the relevant scientific community. The Daubert decision does not blindly reject new theories, as in the case of Frye, but subjects the new theories to a set of rules upon which the presiding judge will decide on the admissibility of the evidence. In addition, the admissibility of evidence increases with Daubert because it ensures that “the analyses used on physical evidence are valid, reliable, and can be duplicated resulting in the same outcome” (Fish, Miller, Braswell, & Wallace Jr., 2014, p.
Denno, D. W. (2006). The Scientific Shortcomings of Roper v. Simmons. Retrieved from : http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/116
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing some ad hoc auxiliary assumption, or re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. However, such a method either destroys or lowers its scientific status.” These criteria make it hard for pseudosciences such as astrology or dowsing to be considered science. There has also been large increases in the accuracy and use of technology is ensuring that there is more empirical evidence and proof that theories are being based on. Some may argue against the corrected ratio of falsified to accepted theories, but unless every theory in the history of science was to be measured that argument would be futile, and the above point would still
Along with eyewitness identification, unreliable forensic science has been the cause of around 50% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA testing (understand the causes). There are three factors that lead to unreliable or improper forensic science. They are the absence of scientific standards, improper forensic testimony, and forensic misconduct (understand the causes). The absence ...
The authority of the theory of evolution can be characterized by defining what qualifies as a scientific theory. Although there are several perspectives regarding what science is, they are based on the same premises. Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, claims that the process of “conjectures and refutations” is the method of science (46). In this process, a
...tz et. al. 1997). “The standard of proof in a trial is one such fundamental tenet of criminal law.” (Horowitz et. al. 1997).
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
...'t show that it was of the victims. The court ruled that extensive discovery requirements for future proceedings, including copies of lab results and reports; explanation of statistical calculations; explanations of any observed contaminants; and chain of custody documents (PBS, 1996) . These recommendations where soon expanded in the Minnesota Supreme Court case Schwartz v. State.
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.
Dred Scott was born a slave in the state of Virginia around the 1800's. Around 1833 he was purchased from his original owner, Peter Blow, by John Emerson, an officer in the United States Army. Dr. Emerson took Dred Scott to the free state of Illinois to live, and under it's constitution, he was eligible to be free. In around 1836, Dred Scott and his owner moved to Wisconsin territory, a territory that was free under the Missouri compromise. It was in Wisconsin that Dred Scott met and married Harriet Robinson. John Emerson was transferred in 1837 to Ft. Jessup, Louisiana, were he met and married Irene Sandford. Dred Scott and his wife followed Dr. Emerson and his wife from duty station to duty station; they ended up in St. Louis Mo. In May 1840 Dr. Emerson was ordered to war in Florida. Dred Scott remained in St. Louis with his family and Mrs. Emerson. Dr. Emerson returned home after the war, and relocated to Iowa. This time he left the Scotts behind and rented them out. This would be the last time Scott would see Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson passed away in 1843, leaving the Scott family to his wife, Irene. In 1846 Dred Scott attempted to buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson, who refused his offer. With the help and encouragement of John Anderson, their minister, Dred Scott decided to sue.
Forensic science plays a vital role in the criminal justice system by aiding an investigator’s case with scientific information based on the analysis of the evidence. Each crime scene is unique in its own way and using the evidence collected, forensic experts try to piece it together. An expert is someone who has had enough education, training, and experience to testify to the matter at hand (Harmon 2010). Unlike other witnesses in a case who testify based on first hand knowledge, the expert witness is not required to have firsthand knowledge of a particular case, and in fact, often does not. Rather, the expert witness testifies to the meaning of the facts (Whitcomb et al. 2005). Each forensic expert typically has a background in another scientific discipline, such as biology, physics, chemistry, etc. An expert with a biology background may work with DNA; chemistry may work in toxicology; and physics in blood spatter trajectories. Working separately on their own respected evidence, an investigator is able to collect all their data and set up a case (National Institute of Justice 2013). Usually, these experts will be hired by either the prosecution or defense in a criminal trial, or by a plaintiff or defendant in a civil litigation. The role of the expert witness exists in variants: between criminal and civil courts as well as the prosecution and defense.
While many states are in favor of the Frye test, many trial judges largely accept and prefer the Frye test. Several research studies have been in favor of this argument:
According to the Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opini...