Scientific evidence, admissibility

U.S. 157 (1999)), the Supreme Court extended the rules laid down in Daubert for admission of scientific evidence to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge such as that of mechanics or economists. The Rumho case ended the practice of some lawyers of putting experts on the stand to testify that the witness wasn t subject to Daubert because the testimony wasn t, strictly, scientific. 

Until recently, the standard of admissibility of scientific evidence into American courts was based on a decision put forth in 1923 in U.S. v Frye which required that a scientific principle or discovery, the technique used for applying the scientific principle, and the specific application on which the expert testimony is to be based... 

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in Daubert could not, and did not, resolve all the difficult issues regarding admissibility of expert testimony. One question left unanswered by Daubert was does the validation (reliability) standard apply only to traditional scientific evidence, or does it also apply to other technical , specialized , or social science evidence A second question was does the validation (reliability) standard apply only to the methodology underlying the expert s evidence and opinion, or does it also apply to the reasoning process used by the expert in... 

In DuPont v. Castillo, the Florida District Court of Appeals (Fifth District) said it is the function of the court to not permit cases to be resolved on the basis of evidence for which a predicate of reliability has not been established. Reliability is fundamental to issues involved in the admissibility of evidence... Novel scientific evidence must also be shown to be reliable on some basis other than simply that it is the opinion of the witness who seeks to offer the opinion. Finally, in Slay v. Keller Industries, Inc., No. 1001091, Ala. (2001), the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that mere assertion of belief, without any supporting research, testing, or experiments, cannot qualify as proper scientific testimony under either the general acceptance standard enunciated in Frye or the scientifically reliable standard of Daubert. ... 

Although the Supreme Court stated that the Frye decision did not survive the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Frye test remains influential in American courts. The Frye test refers to the standard for admission of scientific evidence applied by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Frye V. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). In refusing to admit the results of a lie detector test, the court stated in pertinent part ... 

Other Standards for Admissibility of Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony... 

Critics of Frye saw an opportunity to loosen the admission standards for expert testimony upon the promulgation of the FRF in 1975. The FRE did not mention Frye or the general acceptance test. In fact, according to the court in United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1234 (3d Cir. 1985), neither the text...nor the accompanying notes of the advisory committee...explicitly set forth the appropriate standard by which the admissibility of novel scientific evidence is to be established. ... 

In federal court, admissibility of scientific evidence and expert testimony depends upon the application of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the facts of any case. After Daubert, these rules generally permit the judge (as gatekeeper ) to admit evidence which is helpful to the trier-of-fact, reliable, and nonprejudicial. 

In the first post-Daubert decade, however, the Supreme Court s apparently more liberal approach to admissibility has not had the effect of further opening the courtroom doors to dubious scientific evidence. Indeed, the federal courts now are scrutinizing the evidence under several criteria, not just general acceptance. Such close attention has led to greater exclusion of evidence because each of the Daubert factors offers an opportunity for the court to find deficiencies in the proffered evidence. 

In toxic tort and product liability litigation, the admissibility of new risk assessment methods and data must be approved by the trial judge before being presented to the jury. The U.S. Supreme Court announced a new standard for the admission of scientific data in 1993 in its Daubert decision (Daubert 1993). Under this new standard, federal judges must serve as a gatekeeper to ensure that scientific evidence is reliable and relevant, which includes an assessment of whether the evidence (i) has been empirically tested, (ii) has a known rate of error, (iii) has been peer-reviewed and published, and (iv) is generally accepted within the relevant scientific field. Many state courts have adopted a similar standard, although some still apply the earlier standard on admissibility (Frye 1923), which is whether the evidence is... 

The history of the admissibility of scientific evidence is surprisingly short, less than a century old. To date, standards of admissibility are founded on three court rulings, and which of the three is or are applied varies with the jurisdiction ... 

Farley, M. A. "Legal Standards for the Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence," in R. Saferstein, ed.. Forensic Science Handbook, Volume III. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall, 1993,1-23. 

Daubert A court ruling on admissibility that among other things tasked judges with the role of gatekeeper for admissibility of scientific evidence and expert testimony. 

Toxicological evaluation. Samples of urine or blood are collected and sent to a certified toxicological laboratory to obtain admissible scientific evidence to substantiate the DRE s opinions. 

What we now require is an empirically verifiable experimental confirmation of the idea of a modular wave-hierarchy in time, or of the importance of nucleic acid ESR for consciousness. The quest for such experiments may prove elusive for the following reason The dependence of scientific methodology upon inductive thought has caused it to construct its rules of admissible evidence against the admission of phenomena that cannot be repeatedly triggered by experimental means. Against this point of view. 

By contrast, the opponent of substantive admissibility of medical and scientific literature will argue one or more of the following points (1) the author is not available for cross-examination (2) treatises quickly outdate because medical and scientific knowledge change rapidly (3) the trier of fact may be unable to understand complex technical passages that may be presented out of context and (4) the literature is unnecessary as substantive evidence when live expert wimesses are available. 

Some Frye proponents also contend that admission of evidence or opinions unsupported by the scientific or medical community opens the courtroom door to any expert willing to testify on a party s behalf. Consequently, juries may award large verdicts based on evidence which is fundamentally flawed. These awards, in turn, may lead to an avalanche of litigation and endless, baseless claims . Furthermore, recent problems of availability and affordability of insurance have been attributed to controversial scientific and medical opinions admitted into evidence. 

During testimony, the scientist must also be aware of the demands of the courts. The procedures used in the laboratory must not only rest on a firm scientific foundation but must also satisfy the criteria of admissibility. The primary rules for scientific and expert evidence are governed by federal and state statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and case law (1-3). GC is a techniqne that is generally accepted by the scientific community as a reliable procednre in the analysis of physical evidence and has met all the requirements imposed by the judicial system when properly applied. 

The function of the forensic scientist today is largely based around Locard s exchange principle. The expertise available in an operational forensic science laboratory covers a range of disciplines and uses a number of scientific techniques. Forensic scientists must therefore be skilled in many scientific areas. They must also be aware of the demands and constraints of the legal system, so that the results of analysis satisfy the criteria of admissibility as evidence that have been established by the courts. 

---