The general standards for admissibility of evidence are that it must be relevant, contain a probative value, and must be free of prejudicial bias. The evidence is relevant if it has the propensity to make a fact more or less credible than it would be without the evidence, and the facts of consequence in determining the action. The probative value depends on satisfying the basic requirement of relevancy as described above, but also upon the existence of any matter of fact. For example, if evidence of a spoken statement is relied upon to prove notice and is lacking unless the person being charged heard the statement. Lastly, courts may exclude relevant evidence if its supporting value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of
…show more content…
Thus, the Court first upheld the gatekeeping role as applied to an engineering witness and made it clear that the Daubert analysis was to be applied to the evidence proffered by all experts, not only by scientists. Second, the Court supported that trial judges are permitted to examine whether an expert's conclusions are sufficiently unfailing, even if based on the accepted and proper methodology. As a result, the Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that the expert's testimony about the cause of the failure of the particular tire in the case at issue was insufficient to be presented to the jury. (Shelton …show more content…
The most visible indicator of this lapse is the number of convictions that have been reversed many years later by the availability of DNA evidence, and other highly developed analyses that prove innocence. Many of these exonerations are publicly acknowledged through media reports; contributing significantly to the technical effects on the expectations of jurors. The highly publicized Innocence Project reports that, as of 2009, there have been 232 post-conviction exonerations by DNA testing in the United States. The availability of DNA testing has risen to numerous post-conviction appeals for DNA testing on the basis that it could produce crucial exculpatory evidence. Many states have responded with legislation addressing the standards for those requests. The Innocence Project continues to devise strategies to develop and initiate improvements; to decrease, and perhaps one day, eliminate our role in wrongful
Thus, the Court first upheld the gatekeeping role as applied to an engineering witness and made it clear that the Daubert analysis was to be applied to the evidence proffered by all experts, not only by scientists. Second, the Court supported that trial judges are permitted to examine whether an expert's conclusions are sufficiently unfailing, even if based on the accepted and proper methodology. As a result, the Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that the expert's testimony about the cause of the failure of the particular tire in the case at issue was insufficient to be presented to the jury. (Shelton …show more content…
The most visible indicator of this lapse is the number of convictions that have been reversed many years later by the availability of DNA evidence, and other highly developed analyses that prove innocence. Many of these exonerations are publicly acknowledged through media reports; contributing significantly to the technical effects on the expectations of jurors. The highly publicized Innocence Project reports that, as of 2009, there have been 232 post-conviction exonerations by DNA testing in the United States. The availability of DNA testing has risen to numerous post-conviction appeals for DNA testing on the basis that it could produce crucial exculpatory evidence. Many states have responded with legislation addressing the standards for those requests. The Innocence Project continues to devise strategies to develop and initiate improvements; to decrease, and perhaps one day, eliminate our role in wrongful