The legal rules that are considered when evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony involve the relevancy and reliability of the social evidence on how women and children respond to trauma and abuse. The Dyas test gives a three-fold test admissibility of expert testimony which helps the courts determine the relevancy of an expert opinion (Dyas v. United States, YEAR). The requirements of Dyas test include (1) the subject matter needs to be related and beyond the ken of average person who does not have specialized knowledge of the subject, (2) the expert must have sufficient skill, knowledge and experience in that particular subject, and (3) if the pertinent art or scientific knowledge does not allow an assertion of a reasonable opinion, then the expert testimony will be inadmissible. The third
…show more content…
There needs to be general acceptance of the particular scientific methodology that experts use to give their testimony. Another legal rule that is considered is the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702 which provides the criteria that experts must meet to testify in court. These well-established rules state that an expert testimony must be (1) related to knowledge beyond what the layperson knows or clears any common misconceptions, (2) consist of an expert that qualifies by specialized knowledge, training or education on the subject matter, and (3) based on the reliable scientific information.
However, it is clearly inadmissible in court when experts use a defendant’s background and personality traits to prove the context. The experts cannot use character evidence as a means to prove that the defendant committed the crime in questioned (FRE Rule 404 (b)). Evidence is also inadmissible when the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value (FRE Rule 403). This
There needs to be general acceptance of the particular scientific methodology that experts use to give their testimony. Another legal rule that is considered is the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702 which provides the criteria that experts must meet to testify in court. These well-established rules state that an expert testimony must be (1) related to knowledge beyond what the layperson knows or clears any common misconceptions, (2) consist of an expert that qualifies by specialized knowledge, training or education on the subject matter, and (3) based on the reliable scientific information.
However, it is clearly inadmissible in court when experts use a defendant’s background and personality traits to prove the context. The experts cannot use character evidence as a means to prove that the defendant committed the crime in questioned (FRE Rule 404 (b)). Evidence is also inadmissible when the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value (FRE Rule 403). This