Exam 2 Flashcards
(16 cards)
The Daubert Standard/Rule of law is followed in Florida.
True
Please explain which standard you believe is more stringent/strict.
The Daubert standard is much more stringent than the Fyre standard because, in the Daubert standard, the judge(s) must evaluate both the reliability and the relevance of an expert testimony. The judge must mainly focus on the methodology and determine whether the witness/expert testimony is scientifically grounded, not useless jargon. For example, a theory can be tested or has been tested to be true/false, a statement or theory was reviewed for validity and accuracy, and whether or not a theory in question is accepted by the scientific community. Additionally, under Daubert standards, judges have to practice more discretion when deciding whether or not the expert testimony is admissible which then leads to a stricter vetting system.
What is summary judgment?
Summary judgment is a procedure that is used primarily in civil cases where a case is decided without the need to go to full trial. This often occurs when there are no material facts that can be disputed or require the need of a jury or judge. Typically it is requested by either the plaintiff or defendant, either party from then believes that the facts they have for the case are undisputed and therefore do not need any further proceedings or examination from a judge or jury in court.
What is the rule of law (holding) in Joiner?
The rule of law in Joiner is that expert testimonies play a vital role in a case however these testimonies go through rigorous standards in regards to relevance and reliability. A lack of a better word would be courts have to use an abuse of discretion standard when they are reviewing court decisions when determining the admissibility of an expert’s testimony.
What is the rule of law (holding) in Kumho Tire case?
The rule of law in the Kumho Tire case is that Daubert standards must apply to all testimonies provided by experts. This allows trial courts to assess the accuracy and validity of scientific and also technical knowledge, not exclusively tied to just scientific testimonies. Essentially judges are gatekeeping by extending the Daubert standard.
To meet the Frye Standard in a court of law what must be shown?
For the Fyre Standard to be met in the court of law the expert who is testifying must show or prove that their methodology or their principles in the scientific community is accepted or generally accepted by said community. This standard primarily focuses on the acceptance of scientific techniques and methods rather than just relying on the reliability of the specific case.
Explain the Daubert Standard/Rule of law (holding)?
The Daubert Standard/Rules of Law is the requirement of judges to verify if their expert testimony is relevant and also reliable before allowing the court to listen to the expert. The judges must research if the expert’s methodology can be tested, peer-reviewed by other experts, follow the standards relevant, and just in generally accepted by the scientific community. All these rules guarantee that the testimony is credible and can be trusted in the case.
need you to mention the judge is the GATEKEEPER
What type of cases is the Kuhmo Tire case?
Civil
What type of case is Bullcoming v. New Mexico?
criminal
The Kuhmo Tire case was REMANDED…what does that mean?
The case being remanded means that a higher court (i.e., the Supreme Court) sent this case to a lower court to reevaluate the case under different and new guidelines. In short, it was sent to the lower courts so it could be reviewed using the Daubert standards because now it will not cover scientific knowledge only but ALL expert knowledge.
Name one problem with the Frye Standard.
One problem with the Fyre Standard is the reliability of exclusively “general acceptance” because under this statement the scientific community can put a limit on the general use of updated and newer methods and techniques. This issue arises because even if the methods are entirely reliable they cannot be accepted and therefore excluded because newer methods that aren’t common can be questioned due to not being as mainstream as more common methods.
What are the facts in Kuhmo Tire?
In the Kuhmo Tire case, the plaintiffs (Carmichael) filed a suit on Kuhmo Tires Co. due to a tire blowing out and causing an accident that took the life of one passenger and injured many others. The plaintiffs claimed that a defect in the design of the tire or a defect in the manufacturing of said tire caused the blowout. The Plaintiffs relied on the testimony of an expert in tires named Dennis Carlson who claimed that the failure that led to the accident was due to a defect. In turn, Kumho Tires Co. argued that Mr. Carlson’s testimony was not reliable and did not meet the standards needed for an expert. Thus the case centered on whether or not the Daubert standard could be applied to the admissibility of Mr. Carlsons testimony.
What are the facts of Daubert?
In the Daubert case, the plaintiffs claimed that Benedectin (anti-nausea medication) caused birth defects in many pregnant women’s children. In producing this claim, the plaintiffs wanted to bring in an expert testimony which then presented the concern about what set of standards can oversee the admissibility of scientific evidence when presented in court.
you should also identify who the defendant was…the manufacturer of the drug bendectin merrill dow
What are the facts of Frye?
In the Frye case, the defendants presented a lie detector test as evidence however the court excluded it stating that the science behind the detector test must be accepted by the scientific community and relevant so it can be admissible. This case revolved around the “general acceptance rule” and the standard of admitting evidence in a scientific nature to a court.
it was a murder case in which frye the defendant wanted to use a device similar to a lie detector to show the jury he was innocent..
If the person analyzing the evidence is NOT available…is it possible for the head of the section of the lab to testify as to the procedure and results that were obtained? Why or why not?
The head of the section of the lab can testify if they were present during the actual procedure and the obtaining of results, while some issues can arise it is generally allowed due to the scribing of records, chain of custody, and just general expertise. To elaborate, if the results of the test are recorded as part of regular lab procedures and practice, the head of the lab would be allowed to testify, furthermore, the head of the lab can explain chain of custody procedures and establish a timeline of when or where the procedures and result obtaining occurred which will assist in demonstrating the accuracy of the results and how controlled it was.
read teh cases bullcoming and melendez-diaz they would not allow this for it violated the 6th amendment right of the defendant to face his accusers,
Federal Rule 702 sets forth the rule concerning testimony of expert witnesses. Compare the Federal Rule with that of Frye.
In Federal Rule 702 , expert testimonies are allowed only if they are relevant to the case and reliable which allows judges to be flexible in deciding if the testimony given will help the court understand what’s going on in the case. Furthermore, the judges must consider various factors like the aforementioned testing of the methods, peer reviewing low rate of error and of course generally accepted rules when examining the expert’s methods. In comparison to Fyre, which only allows for expert testimonies to be accepted by experts in the relevant field, judges cannot evaluate the methods. The main difference between these two rules is the flexibility given to the judges by letting them consider all possible factors with Fyre being the stricter rule and finally the scope, on which to elaborate, Rule 702 applies to ALL expertise while Fyre is limited to just scientific evidence.
In short, Rule 702 is much more broader and Fyre is limited.
