The document discusses the admissibility of forensic scientists and their reports as expert evidence in court. It covers the Daubert and Frye standards for expert testimony admissibility. Daubert focuses on relevance and reliability, while Frye focuses on general acceptance in the scientific community. The document also discusses components of strong report writing for forensic scientists, including being clear, concise, structured, impartial and professional. Finally, it notes that while lie detector tests were once inadmissible, they are now accepted in court.

1. DISCOVER . LEARN . EMPOWER
Daubert’s, Frye’s law and
Report writing
INSTITUTE UIS
Department Forensic Science
Masters of Forensic Science
Subject Name: Crime Scene Management and Criminal Justice System
Code: 20FST611
Sahil Sharma
Assistant Professor
(Lecture- 07)
https://www.cwcboe.org/cms/lib/NJ01001185/Centricity/D
omain/129/Animations/detective_crime_scene_lg_clr.gif

2. 2
The objectives of this lecture are;
 To understand the admissibility of Forensic scientist as expert in court.
 To understand the admissibility of opinion of Forensic scientist as
evidence in court of law.
The outcomes of this lecture are:
 Student will learn about the importance of forensic scientists and their
admissibility in the court as expert.
 Student will learn about the admissibility of report by forensic lab or
forensic scientist as evidence in the court.
Objectives and Outcomes to be covered

3. Expert
• Person skillful in a particular area.
• Vetting an expert
• Admissibility of expert’s testimony in court
• In-admissibility of testimony may leads to hazardous
• Two major governing standards: Dauber and Frye

4. Daubert’s standard or Law
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
• U.S. Supreme Court decision
• Relevance and reliability
• Incompatible with the stricter “general acceptance” test

5. Daubert’s standard or Law
• Importance to a trial judge’s
• Petitioners Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller born with serious birth
defects
• Ingestion of Bendectin (anti nausea drug) by Mother
• Respondent submitted an affidavit of physician and epidemiologist

6. Daubert’s standard or Law
• Steven H. Lamm, expert on the risks from exposure to various
chemical substances
• Lamm stated that he had reviewed all the literature
• Medicine tested on 130,000 patients
• No study on Bendectin as Human teratogen (i.e., a substance capable
of causing malformations in fetuses)

7. Daubert’s standard or Law
• Petitioner’s have reports from 8 experts
• Court stated that scientific evidence is admissible only if the principle
upon which it is based is "sufficiently established to have general
acceptance in the field to which it belongs”
• Concluded that petitioner’s evidence did not meet this standard

8. Poll 1
Q. Do you think that court should have considered the petitioner’s
report?
1. Yes
2. No

9. Frye’s Law
• General Acceptance in the Scientific Community
• Expert opinion is admissible if the scientific technique on which the
opinion is based is “generally accepted” as reliable in the relevant
scientific community
• Expert testimony concerning a lie detector test

10. Poll 2
Q. Is there any difference in Daubert and Frye standard?
1. Yes
2. No

11. Difference
• Frye essentially focuses on one question that expert’s opinion is
generally accepted by the relevant scientific community
• Daubert offers a list of factors that affect the opinion

12. Report writing
• Not about art of spin rather a responsibility
• Who,
• When,
• How and
• Why?

13. 6 standards
• Clear & Concise
• Structure
• Relevant & Logic
• Accurate & Complete
• Impartial & Objective
• Professional

14. Components
• Background
• Scope and mandate
• Methodology & limitation (if any)
• Summery of evidence
• Findings
• Conclusion
• Recommendation (if any)

15. Self test
• Does the reader understand the purpose / goal / objective of the
report?
• Is the reader sensitized on the purpose (relevance) of each ‘category /
section’ of the report?
• Is the report structured according to logical relevance of content?
• Structure of report should be reflective of logical relevance / mind-
map

16. Report writing
Do’s
• All evidence particular to issue is
together
• Reader can follow the collective
probative value of all the
evidence
• More conducive
Don’ts
• Do not structure per source of
evidence
• Golden thread is lost
• Relevance of evidence is
scattered
• Reader loses track

17. Summary
• Snapshot of each issue and conclusion
• Logical relevance of issues and sub-issues
• Clear and concise

18. Discussion
Now lie detector is accepted in court of law.

19. References
• https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/daubert-vs-frye-
navigating-the-standards-of-admissibility-for-expert-testimony/
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-102.ZO.html
• https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/the-history-of-
daubert-v-merrell-dow-pharmaceuticals/

20. Supplemental reading
• https://www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/faculty/little/topic8.pdf
• https://www.icfp.co.za/article/forensic-report-writing.html
• https://www.icfp.co.za/sites/default/files/articles/icfp_forensic_repor
t_writing_workshop.pdf
• Additional resources
• https://youtu.be/a4dwypa12c4
• https://youtu.be/jKahEkr6F4M?list=UUxG5tC-Jpwy9XjBMLqziSPA

21. Summary
• What are the qualifications to become forensic scientists?
• What is the required qualification to achieve different laboratory
ranks?
• What are different duties of Forensic scientist towards society and
court of law?
• Importance and duties of Forensic scientist and experts.

22. THANK YOU
For queries
Email: sahilsharma.uiahs@cumail.com