Scientific Expert Ecstasy

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
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

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

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

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

Dna Testing And The Second Amendment
DNA AS 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,

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

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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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,

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 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

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

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

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

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 ofcrime 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,

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 coulВ¬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

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

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,

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

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

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, SirAlec
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

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)

Scientific Expert Ecstasy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Scientific Expert Ecstasy

Similar to Scientific Expert Ecstasy (18)

More from Veronica Hall

More from Veronica Hall (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Scientific Expert Ecstasy