Must scientific expert testimony be based on generally accepted methods or should there be more specific factors in assessing the reliability of an expert witness? An expert witness is a person whose testimony is based on special knowledge in a specific field that is relevant to the court case. In contrast, a lay witness is a non-expert witness whose testimony is based on personal observations. In 1923, the Frye Standard was introduced with a threshold standard for the admissibility of expert testimony for novel scientific evidence and whether it had been accepted generally by the scientific community. By 1993, Rule 702 (FRE) was introduced by Congress that revised the conditions for the testimony of an expert witness. Unfortunately, it …show more content…
The expert witness gains their knowledge through skill, training, education, and/or employment. Their particular knowledge would be something they can provide an opinion, evidence, or data that is beyond or exceeds the knowledge of other witnesses. In addition, the testimony of an expert witness access as a medium to educate the triers of fact (judge or jury) who may not be as knowledgeable or informed on the subject. An expert witness can be an oncologist, a medical biller & coder, ballistics, etc. (Cornell Law School, 2017) There are several restrictions on using an expert witness. These are (Ambrogi, 2010): • Expert Impartiality-the expert witness should assist the court only on relevant matters of where their expertise lies. They should remain impartial and not let advocacy cloud their judgement. • Confidentiality • Reasonable Fee-an expert witness may accept a reasonable fee (hourly or flat fee are both okay). However, the fee may not be based on the final outcome of the case, or accepting “gifts” or other financial incentives, which may then interfere with the expert’s …show more content…
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,
Godiner v. Moran, p. 78. (1993) The 'Standard' of the Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Sell, 343 F.3d 950, 2003 U.S. Appl. No. 89/0, LEXIS 26859 (8th Cir., Sept. 2, 2003).
It supported the view in Tasmania that an appellate court should consider the Evidence afresh when reviewing a trial judge’s ruling. There was no dispute in this issue where both the parties in this case concurred to the approach taken. Therefore, it can be said that the reasoning of Underwood CJ in L v Tasmania and Basten JA (in dissent) in Zhang was accepted.
The use of eyewitness statements and testimony’s can be a great source of information, but can also lead to wrongful convictions. Due to eyewitness testimony, innocent people are convicted of crimes they have not committed. This is why the wording of a question is important to consider when interviewing witnesses. Due to the fact that eyewitness testimony can be the most concrete evidence in an investigation, witnesses may feel they are helping an officer by giving them as much information as possible, therefore they may tell them information that is not entirely true, just to please them. This is why there are advantages and disadvantages to using open and close ended questioning at different durations of an interview. The way you word a question may impact the memory of a witness, this is because a person cannot completely memorize the exact occurrences of an event.
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
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.
Jurors may spot a witness that is trying to fool them, and diligent cross-examination can be an especially effective tool for ferreting out lies. But, jurors will almost certainly not spot a witness who believes their statements are the truth, but has fooled themselves. When testimony is plausible, how can jurors tell whether it is true or false? Jurors should know the factors that impact eyewitness reliability so that they can make more informed decisions about the trustworthiness of such testimony. Moreover, jurors routinely attribute far greater weight to eyewitness testimony than is prudent, making expert testimony on the issue all the more critical. Louisiana is currently one of two states to apply a per se bar on admitting expert testimony to inform jurors of factors related to eyewitness reliability. This paper contends that expert testimony regarding eyewitness reliability (expert eyewitness testimony) is an effective way of improving jury determinations and should be admissible in Louisiana at the discretion of trial court judges for that
Eyewitnesses are primarily used by the criminal justice system for investigating and prosecuting crimes, particularly in circumstances where it is the only evidence available (Wells & Olson, 2003). Their testimony is highly regarded as it allows for police, prosecutors, judges and juries to establi...
Therefore, the criminal justice system relies on other nonscientific means that are not accepted or clear. Many of forensic methods have implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or anything to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011). Defense experts are required to help the defense attorneys defend and breakdown all of the doubts in the prosecutors scientific findings in criminal cases. Scientific information is integral in a criminal prosecution, and a defense attorney needs to have an expert to assist he/she in discrediting the prosecution (Giannelli,
The scientific method is used every day in our lives. We use it to make large and minute decisions, alike. The process is so quick that we use it without knowing. The process starts with a question or an issue, and ends with a solution or more questions. The issue that we will try to address using the scientific method is the reliability of eyewitness testimony. I believe that eyewitness testimony is far less reliable than other forms of evidence in a criminal investigation. We will go through the steps of the scientific method as well as examine existing research to draw our conclusion.
Witnesses are often called before a court of law to testify in trials and their testimony is considered crucial in the identification and arrest of a suspect and the likelihood of a jury convicting a defendant.
In order to understand whether judges would be better at making decisions if they were more truthful, if is essential that an examination of the manner in which they decide cases is undertaken. Many judges will decide based on their own personal back ground. For example, if the judge had a clash in the past with a member of a different race that might play a role in the decision making process. Judicial impartiality is a fundamental characterized in a legal system under the rule of law. The law against bias together with the right to be heard from the principles of natural justice. Judicial proceedings must follow stricter procedural requirements. Implying that proceedings must be similar to those followed in court proceedings. If the requirement is not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Plea bargaining in the United States is controversial issue because the practice of plea bargaining is necessary as long as the United States has high crime rates and facilities for cases. Plea bargaining allows the flexibility necessary if the system is to respond with any degree of concern for the circumstances of individual cases, however, it may also entice defendants to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit rather than risk their constitutional right to
The use of eyewitnesses has been a constant in of criminal justice system since its very beginning. Unfortunately, people do not make the best witnesses to a crime. The person may not have seen the actual criminal, but someone that looks similar to them. The witness may lie about what he or she may have scene. Also the witness can be influenced by the police as to who or what they saw at the time of the crime. The witness or victims memory of the person may have faded so that they don’t remember exactly what had seen, which could be disastrous for the accused.
Vallas, G. (2011). A survey of federal and state standards for the admission of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses. American Journal of Criminal Law, 39(1), 97-146. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.pioproxy.carrollu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s6222004&db=aph&AN=74017401&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Their roles is investigate a crime scene, and study reports made by the experts in the case and interviewing witnesses. They then have to work on a psychological profile based on the evidence they have gathered.
Impartiality means that the judge should not show bias to any of the parties. The two parties should be treated in the same way in terms of equality. Additionally, both parties should be given similar opportunities to submit their cases.