Expert witness testimonies must be scientific, technical, and specifically relevant that will acknowledge the trier of fact to define evidence and determine the fact of the issue. Evidence obtained by expert witness’s must be based off of sufficient facts produced by applicable, reliable, principles and methods. In response to Daubert v. Merrill Daw Pharmaceuticals ( 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and other cases applying the Daubert standard. Under the Daubert standard the expert’s theory must be testable, the technique or theory has been publicized or subject to peer review, obtained a rate of error and success, and the theory must be generally accepted in the scientific community. The United States v Bonds requires expert evidence to hold ‘scientific
…show more content…
The number of matching alleles detected in DNA samples like blood found at the crime scene proves the probable association between the suspect’s sample and the crime-scene sample (Turman, 2001). Because DNA evidence was fairly new, the magistrate judge then conducted a six-week hearing using the Frye rule and the introduction of two hundred exhibits relating to the FBI’s methods. The issue at trial was to determine if the proposed DNA evidence violated the defendants 6th amendment rights and if it is generally accepted in the scientific community. During the trial hearing the government employed six expert witnesses and called Dr.Eric Lander as the courts witness. The government provided expert witness Dr. Caskey, a forensic DNA scientist, who operates the FBI procedures for DNA identification in a major genetics laboratory. At the time of trial, the FBI’s methods had not yet been published in a peer review journal. However, the supreme court labelled the FBI’s procedure for DNA identification had technically employed peer review within the scientific community due to the multiple times DNA identification was tested by multiple experts. Under the Daubert standard the evidence concerned is not just reliable because of reasoning and current scientific validity but instead on valid methods, principles, and
The number of matching alleles detected in DNA samples like blood found at the crime scene proves the probable association between the suspect’s sample and the crime-scene sample (Turman, 2001). Because DNA evidence was fairly new, the magistrate judge then conducted a six-week hearing using the Frye rule and the introduction of two hundred exhibits relating to the FBI’s methods. The issue at trial was to determine if the proposed DNA evidence violated the defendants 6th amendment rights and if it is generally accepted in the scientific community. During the trial hearing the government employed six expert witnesses and called Dr.Eric Lander as the courts witness. The government provided expert witness Dr. Caskey, a forensic DNA scientist, who operates the FBI procedures for DNA identification in a major genetics laboratory. At the time of trial, the FBI’s methods had not yet been published in a peer review journal. However, the supreme court labelled the FBI’s procedure for DNA identification had technically employed peer review within the scientific community due to the multiple times DNA identification was tested by multiple experts. Under the Daubert standard the evidence concerned is not just reliable because of reasoning and current scientific validity but instead on valid methods, principles, and