Forensic Evidence and the Daubert Standard

Argumentative Report On Forensic Evidence
The Hypothesis that we are showing is that John Smith came to a complete stop on 6900 South
Desert BLVD, El Paso TX and coasted into the intersection. The prosecution is stating that John
Smith accelerated through the intersection at a red light. Using the formulas approved by the Court I
was able to prove that my hypothesis is more likely than the prosecutions.
I used the Google Earth program to assist with plotting points and paths. This software is accepted
in State and Federal Courts. Two recent precedents are United States v. Lizarraga–Tirado, where the
defendant claimed that the photo was hearsay. The court disagreed stating "Such images are
produced by high–resolution imaging satellites, and though the cameras are more powerful, the
result is the same: a snapshot of the world as it existed when the satellite passed overhead. Because
a satellite image, like a photograph, makes no assertion, it is not hearsay." Also a state case
Commonwealth v. Suarez–Irizzary, were the defendant challenged the accuracy of the program but
the investigators familiarity with the program and an independent verification to test the accuracy
also done by the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is part of the role of the Physicist to assists the judge. The Physicist who is conveying
information must be clear in his or her communications and sensitive to any quizzical looks or
untoward responses. The Daubert standard presents the four criteria by which judges admit or
disallow scientific evidence into court: (a) Is the testimony based on a testable theory? (b) Has the
theory been subject to peer review? (c) Is there a known or potentially knowable rate of error in the
findings? (d) Is the theory or technique generally accepted in the field? This is how the judge
determines the validity of the equations, an independent Physicist hired by the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The Need For Validation : The United States Supreme Courts...
Brittany Stephens
CMIT 424 7980 Digital Forensics
Analysis and Application (2158)
UMUC
November 8, 2015
The Need for Validation The United States Supreme Courts ruled (Daubert versus Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) that digital forensic tools used during a forensic examination must have
validation for the results of the examination to be upheld in court. This means that any tool or
technique used during the forensic analysis of evidence must be validated through the process of the
scientific method. There are three important issues in regards to computer forensics: admissibility of
evidence, standards (certifications), and the analysis (preservation) of evidence. The term
"Validation" refers to the confirmation by examination and the provision of objective evidence that
the requirements for a specific use are fulfilled whereas the term "Verification" refers to the
confirmation of validation with tools, techniques, and procedures (Flandrin).
Evaluation of Tools
NIST Standardized Approach of Tool Evaluation When a test of a tool is conducted, this method
begins by reviewing the tool documentation of the tool to be acquired. If there is no documentation,
an analysis of the tool is conducted. This method is reviewed by both the vendor and the testing
organization, but this process can be time–consuming.
Reference Sets Has the ability to provide forensic investigators with sets of simulated digital
evidence. In terms of tool testing, datasets have

Polygraph Usage
Polygraph Use i
Should Polygraphs be used in Court Rooms as Admissible Evidence?
Ebony Barr
Psychology and the Legal System FP 6010
Professor Neely
December , 2010
Polygraph Use ii
Abstract Polygraph is widely rejected as pseudoscience by the scientific community. Prior to 1998
state and county courts allowed or could allow polygraph evidence to be admissible evidence to
convict or prove guilt. Polygraphs should not be used in Court Rooms, the accuracy of the test have
not and are yet to be proven. Because polygraphs are not accurate and can be manipulated they
should not be used in pretrial or during the trial. Polygraphs affect the mental health world because
most scientists do not rely on them or ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Rule 707 was the evidentiary rule focused on in the case. Rule 707 serves the legitimate interest of
ensuring that only reliable evidence is introduced. Here the decision turned on the issue of whether
the defendant is impaired by not being able to use the results from the polygraph to prove his
innocence and to lay the foundation for the reliability on the results. In this case, Rule 707 did not
implicate a sufficiently weighty interest of the accused to raise a constitutional concern under this
Court's precedents. The three cases principally relied upon by the Court of Appeals, Rock v.
Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23, and Chambers v. Mississippi, 410
U.S. 284, 302–303, which did not support a right to introduce polygraph evidence, even in very
narrow circumstances. The exclusions of evidence there declared unconstitutional significantly
undermined fundamental elements of the accuser's defense. That was not the circumstances in US v.
Scheffer, where the court members heard all the relevant details of the charged offense from
respondent's perspective, and Rule 707 did not preclude him from introducing any factual evidence,
but merely barred him from introducing expert opinion testimony to bolster his own credibility.
Polygraph

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Case Summary
James Shannon CRJS 450–001 September 22, 2014 The case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals which took place back in 1993 was a case where two children were born with birth
defects and blamed the Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Company saying its drug Bendectin caused the
birth defects. The case played a major role in what was permitted in court as expert testimony.
Merrell Dow had its own experts and research to say that its product never showed evidence of
causing birth defects. But to challenge this, the parents had their own experts to say otherwise that in
animal trials the drug did in fact cause birth defects. One of the things that helped the judges to
determine their ruling was the Federal Rules of Evidence; this basically lays out what the scope of
an expert ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The fry rule was used to help determine whether or not the test on animals would be allowed to
suffice in luau of not evidence being known of birth defects in humans on Bendectin. The Fry rule is
still admissible in court but if it conflicts with the federal rules it is nullified. The two justices that
dissented on the case were Justices Rehnquist and Stevens. The next question what is the difference
between law, fact and discretion is that the fact is what happened, the two children were born with
birth defects and both mothers took Bendectin. Law is what actually a law is, the experts brought in
by the families weren't by law recognized as experts and it is judicial discretion that allows for the
courts to decide which is which. Another few term our personal knowledge which what the person
testifying actually knows. Hearsay what they believe to be true from some source such as someone
told them or opinion which is what they believe to be true based on their prior knowledge of the
subject at hand. A big issue in this case was expert testimony which is testimony given by someone
believed to be an expert in their field of study or practice that

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc. Case Analysis
In the evolution of forensic science, many types of genetic and other forensic evidence are currently
used in the various levels of litigation has posed significant challenges for judges and attorneys in
several cases. Some of these challenges are due to the lack of the scientific explanations of those
that deem themselves experts and unreliable scientific evidence that do not meet the empirical
testability, reliability, and validity (Fradella, 2002).This controversy stems through the many trials
that use experts during and through the determination of the admissibility of scientific and technical
evidence. An example of this is the case in 1993, where the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Walsh, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
These assessments provide an evaluation of the client that include nationally and internationally
accepted psychological instruments and norms to provide the possible precipitating factors
preceding the crime or civil offense (Egeth, 1984). In regards to the Daubert standard the
recommendations that are legally sound, practical and practical involving services that are available
in the community in which the individual lives. The evidence in which the assessments present
should be presented clearly and within their area of expertise involving clinical assessment,
interviewing, and document writing skills. An example of this is the case of Borawick v. Shay which
involved repressed memory evidence such as hypnotism during their expert opinion on the stand
(Topham, 1997). Overall, forensic assessments under the Daubert standard establishes whether the
Federal Mental Health Association would be likely to assist the jury in making an accurate decision
based on relevant and reliable evidence (Heilbrun,

Daubert Standard Research Paper
Across the United States it has been debated, for several years, which standard should be utilized in
the court system: the Frye standard or the Daubert standard. It basically comes down to whether
expert testimony should be presented in court based on wide acceptance or scientific proof. Both
articles explained the Daubert standard as basically a stricter Frye standard, which could also be
gathered from their definitions. It is due to the stricter and more outlined restrictions that the
Daubert standard should be utilized in the Florida court system. The Daubert standard bases its
criteria for expert testimony on proven scientific fact and reliability. Just because an idea is widely
accepted, does not necessarily mean that the idea is true. The best example of this would be that
historically the Earth was believed to be flat. As science, technology, and understanding advanced,
this theory was discovered to not hold true. In a court of a law, a mistake like this could be the
difference between someone's life and death. "The Simplified Guide to Forensic Evidence
Admissibility and Expert Witnesses" article discussed the polygraph, which even by Frye standard
was not admissible in court. Today, many attorneys would be able to present a ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Another reason that the Daubert standard supersedes the Frye standard, is because it is more
concrete which does not open it to interpretation. The Frye standard only basis its criteria on
whether it is of value in understanding the evidence. Whereas the Daubert standard additionally
narrows the criteria down to whether the testimony is based on sufficient data, whether there is
reliable principle, and whether the data was obtained reliably. The Daubert standard can be
pinpointed to the concept of

Problems with the OJ Simpson Trial Essay example
On June 12, 1994, the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found dead at
her home in Brentwood, CA. Orenthal James Simpson, or O.J. Simpson was notified of their deaths
and immediately taken into custody for questions. Upon the collection of various pieces of evidence
from the crime scene, all avenues pointed to Simpson as the culprit for the double murder. The
conclusion of Simpson criminal trial resulted in his acquittal. There were various reasons for this
acquittal. The most prominent reasons include accusations of racism, evidence contamination, and
the lack of faith in DNA profiling. This paper will discuss the issues that arose with the trial in depth
and offer an explanation and solution to resolving issues ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
In an attempt to counter the racist claims of the defense, the jury was selected and was mostly
African American females (Gaines 2001). The district attorney of Los Angeles believed that an all
white jury would be ineffective if Simpson were to be found guilty (Thernstrom & Fetter 1996).
This outcome of the jury selection upset the Caucasian population because they felt as though the
jury selection gave Simpson the upper hand in the trial regardless of the fact that the jury was
majority female. The defense counsel was able to control the jury, in a sense through instilling in
their minds that the LAPD was in fact racist. At the trial's conclusion approximately 83% of blacks
believed that Simpson was guilty, whereas only 37% of whites believed that Simpson was guilty
(Thernstrom & Fetter 1996). These allegations also pushed the evidence collected from the crime to
be discredited as well. The second issue with the Simpson trial, is the collection of evidence from
the crime scene. The crime scene must be protected at all costs to ensure the integrity of the
evidence that will be collected from the crime scene (Schiro, n.d.). Evidence from a crime scene is
arguably the most important aspect of solving a crime and finding an individual to be guilty of a
particular crime. Evidence collection techniques can make or break a case. Poor evidence collection
techniques can discredit the prosecution and glorify the defense,

Polygraph Essay
Polygraph The polygraph test is one of the most controversial criminal investigative techniques of
all–time. From the initial years of the invention to today, there is not a consensus about the
investigative tool. That is why there are many people for and against the administration of polygraph
tests. Therefore, in order to develop a clear picture of the polygraph test the history of the test must
be established. Although, there are many sources that have well documented concerns about the
invention, the polygraph test is still around after almost 80 years.
William M. Marston invented the first lie detector around 1917. He claimed to be able to detect
verbal deception by using a machine to measure an increase in systolic blood ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
They gave Mr. Coleman the polygraph the morning he was scheduled to be executed. In addition he
had no counsel present and the information from the polygraph examination was never released.
This is morally unacceptable, it is hard enough to be given a polygraph test, but the morning a
person is scheduled to die is absurd. Therefore, it is essential that the interrogator must analyze the
state of mind of the suspect before given the polygraph test. After the primary test to check the
attitude and state of mind of the suspect the polygraph examination moves to the actual test. The
principal purpose of the machine is to measure the different variations of each the individuals
answers the questions. So in order to establish this for each of the suspects Keeler developed several
different techniques to measure their emotional responses to the questions. One of the approaches
that he administered was the "Slim Test." (CourtTV.com) The test involves the polygraph examiner
making the suspect pick one card out a deck of cards and put the same card back in the pile without
letting the examiner see it. After the suspect put the card back in the deck the examiner would show
the suspect each card one by one. The examiner them would advise the suspect to say no to every
card that was shown to him. This examiner would then would analyze the emotional response to
each answer given by the suspect. With the information that was collected the examiner would show

United States V. Gordon E. Thomas III Case Study
United States v. Gordon E. Thomas III: Understanding the Effects
Criminal profiling refers to the inference of offender characteristics. Historically, the use of criminal
profiling can be traced back to 38 C.E. when Jews were wrongfully accused of blood libel, also
known as the kidnapping and murdering the children of Christians for religious rituals during Jewish
holidays (Turvey, 2012). As time progressed, criminal profiling has evolved into the study of crime
and criminal behaviors, including mental health and physical evidence surrounding a crime that has
been committed in an attempt to identify a likely suspect. However, the validity of scientific
evidence as a whole was challenged in the 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S.
592. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge was the "gatekeeper" to prevent
"junk science" from entering the courtroom and outlined standards, also known as Daubert
standards, for expert testimony including, testing, peer review, error rates and acceptability (Turvey,
2012). ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Gordon E. Thomas III (2006), a case in which presented the testimony of two experts, Dr. Neil
Blumberg and Supervisory Special Agent James Clemente. To determine the pre–trial detention
arrangements of Defendant Gordon Elliott Thomas, III, after being charged with the sexual
exploitation of a child and the receipt and possession of child pornography, Dr. Neil Blumberg
testified on behalf of the defense. Dr. Neil Blumberg found that after the mental and psychological
evaluation, interview with Thomas regarding his medical and psychiatric history along with
interviewing those close to Thomas, he believed that under the proposed conditions that Thomas
would not pose any significant risk to the community (Turvey,

Legal Aspects Of Dna Testing
LaShay Robbins
DNA Technologies
FRSC 620.102
Research Paper
Legal Aspects of DNA Testing and the Scientific Expert in Court
DNA testing like many other tools in forensics to identify suspects has been through various
evaluations to uncover its validity. These evaluations are necessary because the results of DNA
testing can help to exclude, include, and can even be used to convict suspects. The weight of DNA
testing is heavy in that can be used to alter a person's life forever,hence, the legal movements for it
to be validated. Some believed that the admissibility of DNA testing into the courts would violate
privacy rights or could alert criminals to the evidence that could be left behind when they commit a
crime. The arguments that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The proper training certificates, proficiency test results, curriculum vitae, employment history are
some of the documents the courts use to qualify someone as a Scientific Expert. Through the
education and experience they receive, a scientific expert should be able to explain and teach both
lawyers and jurors how DNA testing work and how they were able to arrive at their results and
conclusions. Their explanations and teachings may involve the use of presentations, literary
references, and even scenarios that would help to view the advantages of evidence in every aspect
without bias.
One reason for exploring and determining the legal aspects of DNA testing is that there are so many
factors involved. From sample collection to analyzing results, every step in processing must be
handled with the greatest of care. Because DNA testing is now something that is looked for by
jurors, the defense attorneys will go through every process used to make sure that proper procedures
were followed and that there are no bias elements involved. For this reason, DNA testing procedures
must be documented. Notes should be taken before, and during processing. A chain of custody
document should also be used to keep an accurate log of the evidence.
All of the burdens involved in the legal aspects of DNA testing however, does not fall on the
Scientific Expert. The courts must also follow proper procedures to ensure a solid conviction. The
proper channels should be investigated

No Scientific Evidence Or Expert Witnesses
How or why some scientific evidence or expert witnesses are allowed to be presented in court and
some are not can be rather confusing. However, there is significant reasons on why the decision was
made. The three major sources that currently guide evidence and testimony admissibility: the Frye
Standard, the Rule of 702; and, the Daubert Standard, as well as who can serve as an expert witness
in a court of law.
Daubert refers to the legal precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in 1993 which defined
the criteria for admissibility of expert witness testimony in the Federal Courts. The Daubert ruling
(Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579) superseded the long–standing Frye
standard (set in 1923) for expert witness testimony (Cornell University, n.d.). The Frye v United
States case states that a court must determine whether or not the method by which that evidence was
obtained was generally accepted by experts in the particular field in which it belongs. In 1923, in
Frye v. United States, the District of Columbia Court rejected the scientific validity of the lie
detector (polygraph) because the technology did not have significant general acceptance at that time
(Forensic Science Simplified, n.d.). The court announced that a novel scientific technique "must be
sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs"
. The court found that the systolic test had "not yet gained such standing and scientific

Daubert Standard Interview
In my interview with Professor Killgallon, my criminal justice professor we talked about the
Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard is the assessment of how the courts treat an expert
testimony. The standards make sure that the evidence presented to the court used scientific
methodology and if accepted science was used to gain the evidence. The Daubert Standard is the
new paradigm shift in many states in the United States. It took the place of the Frye test, which was
used for many years before. The Daubert standard is the better test to use in courts because it makes
the experts present more evidence to make sure that the science or evidence was not faked.
The Frye Test is used "determine whether or not the method by which that evidence was obtained
was generally accepted by experts in the particular field in which it belongs (Cornell)". The Frye
standard was made to have a set of expectations that are set on the people and the evidence that is
being presented. The test did not account for the fact the people ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The Daubert standard makes sure that the people doing the test have had experience in the subject.
"Daubert tests deals with the admissibility of the testimony of the expert and is based upon three
major cases known as Daubert trilogy (differencebetween.com)". These three major cases drew
awareness that the Frye Test is not the best way to do things in the court of law. "The Daubert
Standard also made the testimony's be checked and revised by two or more known professionals in
that field of study (sfandllaw)". This gets rid of the people with no experience, having to get the
testimony revised makes sure that the evidence is not a lie. Under the Daubert standard the general
accepted methods are also checked for, just like in the Frye Test. The Daubert Stand are is better for
this age of court because someone will do anything to be considered not

Scientific Expert Ecstasy
There are currently three standards for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony in the US; the
Fry Standard, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Duabert Starndard (1). The Fry standard is the
oldest being established in the case of Fry v. United States, 1923. It sets the standard as that
evidence may be presented if it has been "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance
in the particular field in which it belongs" (1) The second oldest is the Federal Rules of Evidence,
1975, which is made up of four points but can be summarized as such, if someone has enough
experience and education they may testify and present evidence (1). The youngest is the Duabert
Starndard, which is the result of the case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1993. In this
standard the judge is to evaluate the evidence and/or the expert giving it on a case by case basis and
has the judge evaluate them by a series of points seven in all (1). The issue then is which standard
should be applied in the state of Florida and why. More precisely why is one better and on what
grounds is that being evaluated.
There should be two tests as how to evaluate each standard. The reasoning is as such the entire point
of giving evidence is to make things clearer, as part of the search for the truth. Scientific evidence
then coming from science must be based on the scientific method. This is a systematic method of
thought that can be used to approach problems with the goal of acquiring a better understanding of
the natural ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They must be evaluated for application in the state of Florida. The method for testing these
standards is the standards scientific foundation and which is most legally consistent. Using these
two tests the Daubert Standard is the best and should be applied in the state of

Forensic Science And The Criminal Cases
Forensic science plays a role in most criminal cases. In addition, it has become part of mainstream
American culture due to television and programs that are based on solving crimes. The connection
between science and law has been full of ups and downs. In the courtroom, lawyers may find
themselves examining scientific notions that they do not have a full understanding of. Likewise,
judges, who are also unexperienced with scientific concepts, are forced to make the decision of
whether evidence is relevant and reliable. There is great concern surrounding the quality of our
forensic science system. However, the courts continue to rely on forensic evidence without having a
full understanding on the limitations of certain forensic science disciplines. There are rules that
govern the admissibility of forensic science in court. In the case, Bloodsworth v. State of Maryland,
these rules were not followed and the forensic evidence presented should not have been admissible
in court. Every attempt should be made to properly study techniques and have its accuracy verified
before being used to describe or analyze evidence in court. The standards for the admission of
scientific evidence developed gradually over the years. It started with the case, Frye v. United
States, in which the court concluded that evidence was not admissible unless it was generally
accepted. Years later the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was implemented, which stated that the only
requirement is that

Criminal Trial And The Judicial System Of England And Wales
In a criminal trial or a civil case, a jury or magistrate court in England and Wales is required to
determine and analyze the disputed factual issues. With such a requirement, expert witnesses in the
relevant field are called upon to assist the fact–finding body interpret and understand evidence or
opinion with which such a body is unfamiliar. The current approach to the admissibility of expert
evidence within the judicial system of Wales and England is that of laissez–faire (Akers, 2000).
Within laissez–faire, a number of experts' evidence or opinion are admitted in the jury or magistrate
court without adequate scrutiny since no clear guideless are applied to find out whether the expert
opinion is sufficiently admissible and whether it ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Hence, it gives equality in any decision made so after the hearing is adjourned, come different
expert opinion to enhance or influence the judge to make the right decision In the recent proposal
for reform in the admission of expert evidence, The Law Commission for England and Wales
observed that the "the common law approach to the admissibility of expert opinion evidence is one
of laissez–faire, with such evidence being admitted without sufficient regard to whether or not it is
sufficiently reliable to be considered by a jury" (Akers, 2000). According to the Commission, this
approach is unsatisfactory and recommended that the admissibility of expert evidence should be
considered in the criminal investigation only if (1) it is provided beyond reasonable doubt that the
person who is called upon as an expert witness is skilled, experienced and qualified to give such
evidence or testimonies and (2) the court should properly scrutinize the expert evidence to ensure it
contains scientific principles which are admissible to the court and to the case in question. Under the
proposal of the commission, evidence, opinion or testimony over a crime will only be admitted if the
strength of the evidence is soundly based. For example, the experts evidence would not be admitted
in the court of law if (a) it is based on flawed data, (b) it is based on an unjustifiable assumption, (c)

The American Court System And Dna
The American Court System and DNA Will the use of forensic DNA in the courts be the equalizer
for the wrongly convicted? Per the National Registry of Exonerations, there have been 1,916
exonerations in the United States since 1989 ("National Registry of Exonerations," n.d.). Barry
Scheck and The Innocence Project have been instrumental in facilitating the exoneration process by
presenting forensic DNA evidence to American courtrooms. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the
hereditary material that lies within the nucleus of all cells in humans and other living organisms.
Each person's DNA is unique, and only identical twins share the exact DNA (Vocabulary.com,
2016). Quite by accidents, while conducting research in his laboratory, Sir Alec Jeffreys developed
the technique for the biological ID of any person using only a tiny sample of their DNA (Royal
Society of Biologists, 2016, p. 16). Since the introduction, the use of forensic DNA has manifested a
major impact upon the prosecution, juries, and the wrongly convicted in the American Court
System. As an instrumental character in the adversarial process the American Criminal Justice
system uses, the impact of DNA evidence directly affects the way prosecutors present their case
during trial. When a prosecutor introduced DNA forensic evidence to the American courtroom in
1987, that DNA forensic evidence was the catalyst that secured the conviction of a rapist, Tommie
Lee Andrews, in Orange County, Florida (State

A Brief Note On Criminology : Group Project Essay
Criminology: Group Project
Name
Institution
Expert Witness
An expert is a witness who has a knowledge or experience in a particular field that is beyond that of
a layman. This knowledge and experience enable the particular expert witness to testify on regards
to an issue that requires expertise to comprehend.
To become an expert witness, a number of qualities must be possessed by the witness including, and
not limited to, the number of years they have practiced their expertise, their work experience, any
publications, certificates, training, peer recognitions, and educations.
There are several restriction imposed upon an expert witness. To begin with, an employee cannot
serve as an expert employee, unless on the behalf of the State or under authorization by his or her
agency. In addition to that, one cannot serve as an expert employee where he or she is a special
Government employee.
In the witness stand, there is a difference between a lay witness and an expert witness. On one hand,
a lay witness is a witness that can act as an expert through common sense and life–long experience
in the field concerning the case. On the other hand, an expert witness holds a specialized knowledge
in the area/field that concerns the case and whose opinion is called upon.
The Daubert Rule vs. The Frye Standard
Of late, there has been an ongoing heated debate concerning expert testimony. This is due to the fact
that, more are times that the scientific evidence

Standards: What Are Daubert Standards?
The Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony
during United States federal legal proceedings. Essentially the Daubert Criteria are: 1.Has the
technique been tested in actual field conditions (and not just in a laboratory)? Polygraphy on the
other hand has been well tested in laboratories but not so well tested in field conditions] 2.Has the
technique been subject to peer review and publication? Thus penile plethysmography does not meet
Daubert criteria] 5.Has the technique been generally accepted within the relevant scientific
community? [this test was earlier the only relevant criterion under Frye] Prior to Daubert, relevancy
in combination with the Frye test were the dominant standards

The Role Of Dna Analyst On The Rights Of The Defendant
The goals of science are to make sure that the goods and services they provide are of value to the
community, enhance knowledge, discredit false information or beliefs, and most importantly to keep
a record through documentation so that others can benefit from the knowledge obtained as well (1).
The role of the DNA analyst is also, in part, to protect the rights of the defendant. The DNA analyst
contributes to the trial process in that their job is to analyze evidence, according to set guidelines
and procedures can sway jurors or a judge. The results from the analyst's analysis can be entered
into the court in compliance with the defendant's right to view the evidence, a process called
discovery. When they testify, they are in compliance with the defendant's right to confront their
accusers. The right to a fair trial conducted in a competent manner, right to be present at trial, right
to an impartial jury, and right to be heard in one's own defense is a part of the defendant's right to
due process.
Discovery is as defined in Butler 2012 is the legal process whereby information and materials
relating to the prosecution of a defendant in an upcoming trial are shared between the prosecution
team, for instance, law enforcement, crime laboratory, prosecuting attorney, and the defense counsel
(1). The guidelines of discovery are outlined by the laws of the federal and state governments. The
prosecution must share every element of their case against the defendant with the

Crime Scene Investigation
Since the time that the scientific science dramatization "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" turned into
a tremendous hit and generated its fans, reporters have been worried about what they instituted the
"CSI Effect." The hypothesis behind the effect is that fans of the well–known show disguise
misguided judgments about the law that they bring with them into the court as jurors. In this way,
the trepidation is that the TV show is at last influencing the results of trials – and not in a great
manner. Criminal justice researchers have started to study the inquiry of whether nationals who are
called to serve on juries bring unreasonable desires and convictions to the court as a consequence of
TV projects. The impact that these projects may have on the jurors, their desires, and their choices is
known as the CSI effect. Less frequently, individuals will allude to the "CSI Effect" to allude to the
inverse, nonetheless. Defense attorneys, for instance, now and again contend that attendants
impacted by "CSI" have a tendency to accept that any scientific confirmation gathered will be
implicating. This is likewise hazardous, commentators say, in light of the fact that individuals don't
normally think about the likelihood of error or even fraud [source: Cole. Scientific researchers have
been known to fudge results about request to get a conviction, in the event that they accept that is
the thing that the police desire. Take, for instance, Joyce Gilchrist, a police scientific expert who

Brown Vs Texas Case Study Biometrics
In the case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals the court of law recommended standards
for ascertaining if scientific substantiation was dependable and therefore allowable. Daubert
standards pertain to all the U.S. Federal Courts and only in several state courts. Still, the FBI ought
to go all out to meet the Daubert criteria for biometric substantiation used in each prosecution. The
analytical requests of biometrics are not topics to Daubert standards so biometrics can be castoff in
explorations, in spite of their precise progress. Among exploration and prosecution are areas of
warrants. The requisite precise defensibility of procedural approaches is not at all times unblemished
with warrant engagements. It is judicious that the FBI to seek out Daubert acquiescence, as well as
search for advance usability of procedural proof from explorations to warrants also prosecution
desires. Actually, the theory of biological ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Texas case the Supreme Court reigned that individuals could not be seized for the resolution of
ascertaining credentials once satisfactory doubt is deficient. On the other hand Brown satisfactory
doubt is needed to restrain an accused for his or her credentials. These conclusions might have
insinuations for the use of hand held biometric scanners. They have to figure out whether usage of
the scanners necessitates confinement of the topic. As of the Supreme Court they lately made
conclusion on a case on warrantless GPS tracking of vehicles also its 4 amendment insinuations.
With distribute it might be fascination for biometrics, in expressions of insinuations for the electric
dimension of publicly visible figures. The Supreme Court detained that such pursuing composes for
an exploration and so it can't be guided with any warrant. The court verdict seemed to pivot
precisely upon the delineation of an automobile as a result of the 4 Amendment safeguard besides its
insinuations for getting hold of biometric information to be

Evaluation Of The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory IIi...
An Evaluation of the "Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III Manual, MCMI–III Third Edition
Nikyra James
Dr. Jacobsen
Psyc 220
4/30/2015
The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III or MCMI–III is a level C, self–report personality test
created by Theodore Millon, PhD, DSc, with Carrie Millon, PhD, Roger Davis, PhD, and Seth
Grossman, PsyD. The MCMI–III was published originally by NCS Pearson, Inc in 1994 but was
then re–released in 1997 (Millon et al, 1997). This test is pretty pricey coming at $406.95 for the
fourth edition, the third edition is no longer available for purchase since a newer version has been
published and using the third edition would be unethical. The price for the fourth edition of the
MCMI–III personality test is for the manual scoring starting kit, which includes: 10 test booklets, 50
answer sheets, 50 worksheets, 50 profile forms and answer keys; however the plain manual without
any of the additional required items can be purchased for $61.50. The fourth edition will be released
later on this year, 2015 (Clinical Psychology, 2015). The MCMI–III Third edition is a test that
assesses DSM–IV related personality disorders and syndromes for the use of people 18 years of age
and older at an 8th grade reading level and is also available in Spanish (Clinical Psychology, 2015).
"The primary purpose of the MCMI–III test is to provide information to clinicians–––psychologists,
psychiatrists, counselors, social workers, physicians, and nurses–––who must

The Judicial System 3300 : Georgia Gwinnett College
Admissibility of Evidence
April Smolkowicz
Professor Carroll
The Judicial System 3300
Georgia Gwinnett College
Abstract
The admissibility of expert testimony from the past to the present, The Federal Rule of Evidence,
Rule 702 (1975) the revision of Rule 702 (2000) and (2010), Frye v United States (1923), Daubert v
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., v Carmichael (1999).
I. Introduction:
II. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 (1975)
A. Rule 702 expert witness compared to a fact witness
B. Standards for admissibility of expert testimony
C. Rule 702 revised (2000)
III. Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013 (D. C. Cir. 1923)
A. Frye ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Most of us know that these shows are in fact fabricated and far from reality in the real world. We do
not have equipment that sophisticated in real life and it takes longer than an hour to solve a crime,
much less talk to witnesses, and victims and possibly the gathering of evidence to be tested and
analyzed. With this in mind we will discuss the admissibility of evidence beginning with the Federal
Rules of Evidence (FRE) enacted July 1, 1975, also associated with Public Law 93–595: an act to
establish rules of evidence for certain courts and proceedings enacted by legislature. The FRE is the
introduction of evidence at the civil and federal trial courts in the United States whereas it is left up
to the jury and or the judges' digression. As the Federal Evidence Review stated that, "The
legislation was the culmination of more than fifteen years of effort to draft uniform rules of evidence
for the federal courts. The final legislation was then sent to President Gerald R. Ford and signed into
law, as the new Federal Rules of Evidence (2015)." The rules are broken down into eleven articles;
for now we will explore article VII – with the opinions and expert testimonies. When comparing the

Polygraph Testing In The Criminal Case Of US V. Frye
Innocent people suffer from the crimes that criminals commit within communities. Victims of
pedophilia can suffer from anxiety, depression, and thoughts of suicide. Louise from the Pandora
Project tells about her story: "I am a survivor of repeated oral rape as a child of four, and later
between the ages of eight and ten, multiple types of rape by a close family friend. If the earlier
assaults were bad, the later were most terrifying ordeals; I thought he would kill me. Because I knew
what people to do "make babies" but didn't understand that I wasn't old enough to have a baby, I
lived in constant fear that he would make me pregnant and then everybody would find out. I often
felt that I would not survive the next time. The despair and entrapment ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The subject's respiratory rate, sweat gland activity, and cardiovascular activity are monitored to
determine whether or not the subject is being truthful during a polygraph test. Test givers are now
able to distinguish between a subject who is lying and one who has test anxiety because subjects
with test anxiety show the symptoms of "lying" over many categories of questions, instead of just
one. After their release from prison, over 90% of convicted pedophiles are arrested again for sexual
assault. Therefore, in order to help prevent pedophilia, Professor Don Grubin of Newcastle
University headed a trial in Northumberland, Surrey, that led to encouraging results for using
polygraphs as a way to prevent pedophilia. Because of the case in 1993, Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, a new set of standards were issued that stated that judges were able to admit
polygraph tests, and other scientific evidence, into courts if the theory behind the evidence could be
tested, it had been

Essay on Gathering the Facts at the Crime Scene
The excitement of watching a beautiful well–dressed medical examiner or forensic examiner in
stiletto heels hovering over a homicide victim is quite thrilling for television. However, in the reality
solving homicides is not as one would see on their favorite police show. As mention previous, the
intrigue with police shows on television make it difficult to found a jury that have not seen those
type show. Therefore, the court system has a problem obtaining a guilty verdict because jurors
wrongfully acquit guilty defendants when no scientific evidence has been presented, as they have
seen on television. As Donald Shelton states in "the CSI Effect: Does It Exist" this so–called effect
was promptly dubbed the "CSI effect," laying much ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This task can be accomplished through forensic evidence collection. Once the evidence has been
collected, it must be preserved by maintaining chain of custody to prevent evidence tainting. The
evidence will be preserved until it ready for presentation at the homicide trial. This paper will
examine the major sources of evidence that is required in a homicide investigation that will assist
the prosecution in obtaining a conviction in a homicide case. The Evident– Blood splatter A crime
scene is a unique merging of science and the law. Crime scene investigation is a process that
includes documentation of the conditions at the scene and the collection of any physical evidence
that coul¬d give reference to what happened. There is no typical crime scene, and the evidence
found there will vary. (Layton, 2005) When there is a homicide at a crime scene, the forensic
investigator will look for evidence to provide an indication of what actually happen. Did the person
kill their self? Did the victim suffer at the hands of a criminal? The crime scene investigator will
look at blood platter evidence as source to gain knowledge into these question. Blood splatter
evidence give investigator a scientific assessment into criminal investigation. When blood splatter or
drip from the human body, its is impacted by gravity and velocity. Therefore, it imperative to

Dna Testing And The Second Amendment
DNAAS EVIDENCE
DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states.
(Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as "good"
evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that
have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is
causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. "In most cases, the tests that are used
are well established and do not require a separate hearing" (Hails, 160) Once it is established the
testing method used passes the Daubert test, the court must determine admissibility based on the
Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (US Const.) "In United
States v Davis, Earl Davis was shot and while being treated for his gunshot wound, the Howard
County Police Department (HCPD) in Maryland collected his clothing and logged it along with
records of Davis's arrest. The next year the nearby Prince George's County Police Department
(PGCPD) suspected Davis of a murder and obtained the clothes that HCPD had previously
collected. PGCPD then

Bendectin Case
Their conclusions were based upon "in vitro" (test tube) and "in vivo" (live) animal studies that
found a link between Bendectin and malformations; basically that the chemical structure of
Bendectin was similar to other other substances known to cause birth defects; and the "reanalysis" of
previously published epidemiological (human statistical) studies. In neither essence the submitted
documents were never published nor peer reviewed articles demonstrated a link between Bendectin
and birth defects. Merrell Dow had introduced evidence that no epidemiological study ever
performed had concluded that the use of Bendectin by pregnant women significantly correlated with
the incidence of birth defects in those women's children (Atikian, 1994 p.1516). ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
137, 141 (1999). Patrick Carmichael blew out the right rear tire of a minivan and in the incident one
of the passengers died, and others were seriously injured. A diversity suit was brought against the
tire maker, Kumho Tire Co., and its distributors, claiming that the tire was defective. Rule of Law:
Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 702 gives the district judge discretion to determine reliability
of evidence in regards to the circumstances and facts of a particular case. Dennis Carlson Jr. testified
as an expert witness for the petitioners as a tire failure analyst, intending that the tire's manufacture
or design caused the blow out. Whereas his opinion was based on visual and tactile inspection of the
tire; upon this theory this sort of tire failure was the result of a defect and not tire abuse. The
petitioner's moved to exclude Mr. Carlson's testimony on the ground that his methodology failed to
satisfy Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702. The District Court granted the petitioner's summary
judgment motion arguing that in examining the factors set out in Daubert v Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals. Inc. Mr. Carlson's methodology is not reliable. (Kumho Tire Co., 2015). The
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, held that the District Court erred as a matter of law in
applying Daubert, and held that the Daubert factors did not apply to Mr. Carlson's testimony.
(Kumho Tire Co., 2015). Judge Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion for the United States Supreme
Court holding that the Daubert factors may apply to the testimony of engineers and other experts
who are not scientists. The District Courts decision to not admit Mr. Carlson's expert testimony was
lawful because it found his methodology unreliable after appropriate examinations (Rule 702,

Culture : Weston Smith And The Ceo Of The Healthsouth...
Culture Weston Smith (2013), former CFO of HealthSouth, states "the tone of the company may be
memorialized through policies and procedures, both written and spoken, but nothing sets the tone
more than the everyday actions of the leadership." At the top of the HealthSouth organization sat
Richard Scrushy. As founder and CEO of the company who instilled fear in employees that did not
carry out his orders. This set the tone from the top. Do as you're told or suffer the consequences.
When financial results did not meet market expectations, managers were told to fix it. And they did
by creating false journal entries and false documentation to back up those entries. There were no
checks and balances in place and the accounting system was not linked to the enterprise resource
planning software. There was no oversight of managers by a board of directors or an audit
committee. The audit committee was not well trained, did not have enough staff, and was not
independent of management. Scrushy had complete control of the company and he was obsessed
with increasing his earnings trends. He reinforced the idea of top management being family and
therefore more loyal to each other than to the unknown public (Lupica, 2014). Impact on Company
Management Due to the scandal, 15 HealthSouth executives plead guilty to criminal charges. Due to
sentencing by various judges, the standards employed in sentencing were not consistent. Some of
the executives served jail time, some were

Forensic Evidence and the Daubert Standard

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Forensic Evidence and the Daubert Standard

Similar to Forensic Evidence and the Daubert Standard (13)

More from Lindsey Jones

More from Lindsey Jones (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Forensic Evidence and the Daubert Standard