The most powerful jurists in the country cannot do math. In March 2018, when the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a landmark case that would determine the future of partisan gerrymandering, its members were reluctant to consider statistical evidence seriously.
A concept called the “efficiency gap” lies at the core of Gill v. Whitford: it is a simple fraction where the numerator is the difference between the two parties’ wasted votes and the denominator is the total number of votes cast. During the oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts dismissed the straightforward concept, stating that “[i]t may be simply my educational background, but I can only describe it as sociological gobbledygook.” Justice
…show more content…
v. Joiner and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael that the task of “gatekeeping” – or ensuring that expert testimonies, including statistical evidence, are relevant and reliable – belongs to the judge rather than independent experts. Eventually, in 2000, the decisions in Daubert, General Electric, and Kumho served as the basis for the Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Since then, over half of the states have adopted some variation of the so-called Daubert standard.
In light of Rule 702, judges who oftentimes lack a quantitative background took over the responsibility that previously belonged to highly trained experts. Their newly gained role as evaluators of statistical evidence has led to a series of chaos and confusion. The interpretation of the term “peer review”, for instance, has been inconsistent among different courts throughout the country. Professor Paul Giannelli writes in Case Western Reserve Law Review that the “peer review” standard in some courts has been interpreted to simply mean that someone has double-checked a lab analyst’s results rather than a “rigorous peer review with independent external reviewers to validate the accuracy … [and] overall consistency
…show more content…
In U.S. v. Havvard, numerous scientific findings challenged the validity and accuracy of the latent fingerprint matching technique. The technique involves using special procedures to uncover finger print residues that are invisible to the naked eye, and studies find that it can vary significantly in its quality and correctness. The court, nevertheless, referred to latent finger print matching as the “archetype” of reliable expert testimony by asserting that it “[has] been used in ‘adversarial testing for roughly 100 years,’ which offered a greater sense of the reliability of fingerprint comparisons than could the mere publication of an article.” Though many studies point out that finger print collection and examination can be highly inaccurate if done without rigor, fingerprinting methods such as latent print matching have not suffered a sustained challenge in federal court in nearly 100 years. In addition to latent print matching, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Commission on Forensic Science, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science, and Technology and the Texas Forensic Science Commission have found that many well-known and admitted forensic science techniques such as bite-mark analysis, microscopic hair comparison, and arson evidence are questioned by independent
Victoria and New South Wales (NSW) take a similar approach in relation to tendency and coincidence evidence (‘the Evidence’). However, until the case of KJM (No 2) , they took different approaches in reviewing rulings of the Evidence .
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...
Buckler, Justin. "Population Equality And The Imposition Of Risk On Partisan Gerrymandering." Case Western Reserve Law Review 62.4 (2012): 1037-1055. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
From the early days, with little literary reference material, to the current day, with substantially more, but still insufficient formation, the science of fingerprint identification has managed to maintain its credibility and usefulness. Although, academic institutions have yet to recognize the field as an applied science and include it in the curricula, which would provide directed research and literary reference, in libraries. Without this academic recognition, progress in the field of fingerprint is destined to be sluggish. Description of fingerprint identification as a forensic science’ or an ~app1ied science’ in no way implies that is not a reliable science. Fingerprint identification, correctly understood and applied, is just as scientifically valid and reliable as any other science and, indeed, more accurate than many. The fingerprint expert applies knowledge gained through training and experience to reach a conclusion. The many uses of fingerprint identification range from criminal investigation to non-criminal matters such as deceased, missing persons and disaster victim identification. Fingerprint identification has been used in the court systems for many years. Yet there are those who that still try to challenge fingerprint science and the experts in the court of law by a Daubert Hearing. In this paper, Daubert Hearing is define and detail outing background of the cases, the Government preparation, the Testimony from both sides, the judge’s verdict and finally, Mitchell’s second trial on this case.
Dissent: They were two judges who dissented. Judges Mosk, J. and Panelli, J. Said that they were we to eliminate the doctrine of assumption of risk, we would put an end to the doctrinal confusion that now surrounds apportionment of fault in such cases. Assumption of risk now stands for so many different legal concepts that it’s utility has diminished. The assumption of risk has different legal concepts to it and it reduces the right of the plaintiff if the defendant can demonstrate the plaintiff voluntarily know the
Crime is a common public issue for people living in the inner city, but is not limited to only urban or highly populated cities as it can undoubtedly happen in small community and rural areas as well. In The Real CSI, the documentary exemplified many way in which experts used forensic science as evidence in trial cases to argue and to prove whether a person is innocent or guilty. In this paper, I explained the difference in fingerprinting technology depicted between television shows and in reality, how DNA technology change the way forensics evidence is used in the court proceedings, and how forensic evidence can be misused in the United States adversarial legal system.
The acceptance of fingerprint identification in the judicial system as scientific evidence has become like expert testimony. Advances in image processing have impacted how fingerprints can be lifted without being destroyed, which has led to fingerprint evidence becoming the silent testimony leading to more conventions. In the case of the United States v. Byron C. Mitchell Criminal Action No. 96-00407, fingerprints found in the car were the scientific evidence which identified Mitchell as a participant in an armored car robbery (Appellant Counsel for Appellee, 2003).
Contextual information also affects the human comparative part of fingerprint analysis, in ways that alter the matching of the same fingerprints, years apart; however, when contextual information is provided, it actually helps 20% of forensic technicians, but that still leaves 80% hindered by contextual information (Dror et al, 2006). Contextual information affects the psychological aspects of perception and problem-solving, in a way that can obscure information that does not support the context, and it can even affect how forensic technician’s view and handle forensic evidence (Bernstein et al, 2013). However, there are some advantages of contextual information, because it can give the forensic division a mental shortcut, saving time and money; however, these shortcuts lead to inaccurate and biased conclusions. This essay has shown that contextual information creates erroneous mistakes and prejudiced results in forensic investigations. A possible way to remove the negative effects of contextual information is to have the forensic technicians, not know the context of the crime so that they do not
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
Having the ability to identify types of prints and surfaces, and the corresponding techniques to develop the prints, has helped crime scene investigators identify criminals and victims of scenes, and aided in the prosecution of defendants in the criminal justice system. Although the history and techniques go far beyond what was discussed in these few pages, it is important as a law enforcement officer or investigator to understand the very basics of how fingerprint identification began, and the simple techniques used to develop them today.
The article Do Fingerprints Lie? was written by Michael Specter. It challenges the subject of whether fingerprint evidence is flawless as it is generally accepted in court. For a very long time, the US court system would accept any sort of "expert testimony", regardless of whether they were legitimately experts. Opinions that were "generally accepted" in the field were allowed, even if they weren't factually proven. The case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals brought this into a more critical light and created stricter guidelines for what could be admissible.
There is a lot of controversy whether latent prints uncovered on firearm evidence can be deemed reliable. In order to fully understand this controversy, studies must be conducted so that there is supporting evidence. Two examples of studies that were conducted are the Study on Developing Latent Fingerprints on Firearm Evidence by Betzaida Maldonado, and Fingerprint & Cartridge Cases: How Often are Fingerprints Found on Handled Cartridge Cases and Can These Fingerprints Be Successfully Typed for DNA?, by Terry Spear, Jeanne Clark, Mike Giusto, Neda Khoshebari, Michael Murphy, and John Rush.
Thesis Statement: In this speech I am going to explain how forensic teams use fingerprints to identify individuals.
“Any action of an individual, and obviously the violent action constituting a crime, cannot occur without leaving a trace.” (LOCARD, 1934), This means that no crime can be committed without leaving behind evidence which will help forensic scientists link the criminal to the crime. When a person touches a surface or thing they leave behind some sweat which will create a copy of their fingerprint on the surface, they are often found at crime scenes and most of which are not linked to the case at all, but the uniqueness and reliability of these prints means that when a set of prints are found at a location they should not be the mark is examined and compared to prints taken from suspects, indicating that the person who matches these prints was at the scene of crime at some point, linking them to the
In 1993, the United States Supreme Court had set a new standard in a decision based on Daubert v. Merrill Dow, which amended Rule 702 (FRE). In contrast to the Frye Standard, the main focus of the Daubert Rule of evidence is based on the principles and methodology for admitting testifying expert witnesses; and not on the proffered conclusions. The new rule created four guidelines that a judge must consider on the relevancy and reliability of scientific knowledge or techniques (Cornell Law School,