This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical. The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury. …show more content…
The Court rejected the position argued by APA, that the Court adopt the Daubert reliability factors for determining the admissibility of expert evidence offered during the sentencing phases of federal death penalty sentencing hearings. The Court opined that the issues which APA (and Fields) raised were foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Barefoot v. Estelle. I think the man got what he deserved, by doing wrong because he knew what he was doing was wrong and would cause consequences for his
...merican Psychological Association. The APA submits an arguments that an accurate proceeding requires an adversary hearing, the assistance of mental health professionals, and decision makers to specify in writing the factors relied upon making decision.
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
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.
The majority opinion addresses the timing of the execution pursuant to 22 O.S. 2011 Section 1001.1 (E), (F) will take happen thirty (30) days after the stay is entered. The OCCA states that no witnesses refuted the State’s case - although the snitch didn’t testify at the second trial, the forensic evidence was discredited in multiple murder cases, and the chief prosecutor was a
15) Grinfeld, M. J. "Executing the Mentally Ill: Who is Really Insane?" Psychiatric Times. Vol. XV, Issue 5. May, 1998. , Discussion of the legal aspects of criminal insanity and violence research.
Background: Merck & Co. is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. In 1971 the United States approved the use of an MMR vaccine made by Merck, containing the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps vaccine. In 1978 Merck introduced the MMR II, using a different strain of the rubella vaccine. In 1997 the FDA required Merck to conduct effectiveness testing of MMRII. Initially it was over 95%; to continue the license; Merck had to convince the FDA that the effectiveness stayed at a similar rate over the years.
Although the flaws of death penalty are lucid, they are often times over looked by society. Innocuous people have been ruled to death based upon mistaken eyewitness testimonies, mistaken identity, and false confessions through coercion. Former Governor of Illinois George Ryan was a staunch proponent o...
Lieberman in Scientific Jury Selection states, “...scientific jury selection originated in criminal trials in which academic researchers provided assistance to defense counsel because the researchers were concerned about the government having disproportionate degree of power and control over the outcome of cases.” As stated before, a jury does not have to think about the laws or the influence of the judge and lawyers, they must simply agree on what they believe happened. Some juries depend on facts or evidence, while others decide on if they believe the story others decide on their moral stances. This all comes back into why psychology is so important in the process of jury selection. When a juror decides the fate of an individual they don’t necessarily just use their brain, they use their heart, or their beliefs. What someone believes in can only be interpreted through psychology, the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context. Trying to predict the outcome of someone's decisions is very difficult, that's why we have so many specialists, and consultants that are used in trials to determine the best possible pathway for a criminal
In Anatomy of a Murder, there were four expert witnesses, Dr. Smith, Dr. Harcourt, Dr. Raschid, and Dr. Dompierre, who testified during the trial and gave their respected opinions based on their expertise about the evidence and stipulations raised. An expert witness is defined as a witness who has special knowledge or training in a specialized area (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg.123). The opinion of an expert witness may be admissible if the opinion is being given about a subject that can clear issues in the court. To determine whether or not the expert witness testimony is admissible, it must meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence 702-704. In addition to reviewing each of the three Federal Rules of Evidence, I reviewed each of the four expert witness testimonies and analyzed whether or not each testimony complied each Federal Rule of evidence.
The Death Penalty Should Be Enacted In Illinois Due to the recent releases of newly exonerated Death Row inmates, individuals and organizations are calling for a moratorium- a cooling off period for state executions. The cases of just a few inmates makes it apparent that this would be a necessary step to save innocent lives. After 17 years in prison, Illinois Death Row inmate Anthony Porter was released from jail after a judge threw out his murder conviction following the introduction of new evidence. This reversal of fortune came just two days before Porter was to be executed. As reported in USA Today, Porter's release was the result of investigative research as conducted by a Northwestern University professor and students. The evidence gathered suggested that Porter had been wrongly convicted. Were these new revelations and the subsequent release of Porter a lucky break or a freak occurrence? Not likely, reports DeWayne Wickham, also of USA Today. He points out that since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, of those sentenced to death, 490 people have been executed while 76 have been freed from Death Row. This calculates into one innocent person being released from Death Row for every six individuals that were executed. This figure correlates with the 1996 U.S. Department of Justice report that indicates that over a 7-year period, beginning in 1989, when DNA evidence in various cases was tested, 26% of primary suspects were exonerated. This has led some to conclude that a similar percentage of inmates presently serving time behind bars may have been wrongly convicted prior to the advent o...
...t I do not think that the evidence presented is enough for a conviction to sentence any man or woman to death.
The first instance was in Germany, when a defense attorney asked a psychologist Hugo Munsterberg to review a case in which his client confessed to murder, but then changed his mind and claimed that he was not guilty (Tartakovsky, 2011). The judge, after hearing Munsterberg’s opinion, however, was furious that Munsterberg thought that he had expertise in the case, and refused to believe in his assessment, and the man was found guilty and hung (Tartakovsky, 2011).
" Mental Illness and the Death Penalty." American Civil Liberties Union. May 5, 2009. Web. 04
Merck & Co. has to be aware of the economy as with any industry. Within the recession, more and more were looking towards generic substitutes. This can at times not be a problem with patents. However, once a patent is up, a competitor who develops generic versions of Merck’s products becomes a low-cost competitor. However, during the recession from 2008 – 2009, Merck didn’t see any drop in sales. Actually, they were able to keep a continual increase in sales and net income.
Each division has its own brand management, sales, finance, product development and operations line management and was evaluated as a profit center.