Describe how the rulings in Frye v. US and Daubert v. Merrell Dow have affected
ID: 672299 • Letter: D
Question
Describe how the rulings in Frye v. US and Daubert v. Merrell Dow have affected forensic sciences and the court systems. Make sure you discuss the effects of both rulings. Worth 10 points.
Question #7
Description of Frye?
Description of Daubert?
Description of how both affected forensic sciences?
Description of how both affected the court system?
8. What is the methodology of having a new scientific technique accepted into a court of law? Choose one of the applicable major case laws (Frye or Daubert). Explain the ruling and how a new scientific technique would be introduced into court using that technique. Then describe how a scientist would ensure they can answer all the applicable questions regarding their scientific technique to allow that technique to be admitted into a courtroom? Worth 10 points.
Question 8
Chose 1 of the major case laws (Frye or Daubert)?
Description of how forensic scientist would apply this and answer applicable questions?
Description of how new methodology would be introduced based on ruling?
9. Forensic science involves many sub-disciplines. Name 5 of these forensic science sub-disciplines and describe what the area of focus of each sub-discipline is about, including what type of evidence would be examined by that sub-discipline and what type of results that sub-discipline could produce.
Question 9 Description of 5 different forensic science sub-disciplines?
Description of the area of focus of the 5 sub-disciplines?
Description of the types of evidence examined by the 5 sub-disciplines?
Description of the types of results generated by the 5 sub-disciplines? 2.5 pts
Explanation / Answer
Description of Frye:
The Frye vs USA ruling set a standard for the acceptance of expert testimony in court. This standard was later adopted by almost all state and federal courts. In 1923, James Alphonzo Frye appealed his conviction for second degree murder. Frye had initially confessed to commiting the crime but had later retracted.
At the time of the trial, the court refused to let Frye give evidence about his truthfulness by using a "systolic blood pressure deception test,". This test is a crude precursor to the current day lie detector or polygraph test. The court did not allow Frye to introduce a witness to testify about the deception test.
A polygraph machine measures an examinee's rate of heartbeat, blood pressure, perspiration, and breathing with various sensing devices. Questions are asked to the examinee while he or she is connected to the machine, and polygraph examiners claim to be able to detect when an examinee is not telling the truth by analysis of these measurements.
Daubert Ruling
In 1993, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the Supreme Court finally clarified that Rule 702, not Frye, controlled the admission of expert testimony in the federal courts. The Supreme Court held that when expert evidence based upon “scientific knowledge” is offered at trial, the judge, upon proper motion by a litigant who challenges the admissibility of the testimony, should act as a gatekeeper and first determine whether the proffered evidence is “reliable”–Whether it is evidence that can be trusted to be scientifically valid. In the outcome of Daubert, a number of courts had to address the unresolved issue whether the Daubert factors by which reliability was to be tested should also be applied to experts offering opinion testimony that was not based on clearly identified scientific principles, but which sprung from “technical or other specialized knowledge.” Since the clear majority of informed opinion seemed to favor applying a Daubert-like standard to all expert opinion testimony, the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence endorsed that requirement by amending Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in 2000.
The amended version includes:
(1) The testimony is sufficiently based upon reliable facts or data.
(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Impact of Daubert on Forensics:
Daubert had a huge impact on the forensic sciences. For example, scientific evidence that had long been accepted by the courts was re-evaluated under Daubert ruling and, in some cases, excluded. For example, a federal district court excluded a positive identification using fingerprint analysis.
After a pre-trial Daubert hearing to consider the admissibility of fingerprint evidence, Judge Louis Pollak excluded expert testimony regarding fingerprints as unreliable.