Reference no: EM132296646

Assignment: 150 words agree or disagree need in 1 hour

1. Discuss the Daubert Standard and its impact on scientific evidence.

Often, in criminal and civil trials, there are experts that testify for both sides of court. When we think of someone being an expert in their field, we assume their views are accurate based on experience and education, maybe scientific proof. Juries rely heavily on these experts when making decisions that effect the outcome of a trial. What happens, however, is problems come up when two experts give two different types of information o the same subject. So, the conflict arises when expert testimony becomes questionable.

According to Hanna & Mazza (2006), the Supreme Court clarified the admissibility of scientific evidence in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and were forced to create guidelines for applying the Federal Rules of Evidence, in witness testimony. In other words, prior to this the scientific community was thought to be the end-all of any testimony.

Daubert created a two-part test which required courts to emphasize whether an expert is testifying to scientific knowledge or assisting to determine facts in an issue. This allows the judge to decide whether the methodology behind the testimony is scientifically valid or whether it is relevant to the case at all.

2. How can a forensic expert prepare for Voir Dire (qualifying an expert) and subsequent testimony?

Most attorneys and judges do not have the proper scientific background in order to decide the admissibility of expert testimony. They typically give a brief look at the qualifications of an expert. Experts can be used in either consultation or testimonial capacities and there are 5 categories of expertise. According to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993), the Daubert standard of for evaluating scientific evidence is based on reliability and the Daubert test is relevance for "good sci- ence." Additionally, reliability is based on whether the theory is subject to peer review and has been tested, is there a known rate of error and has it received the head nod from the scientific community.

A person's resume should not be the litmus test for Voir Dire. A list of questions should be used and written in unique correlation to the present case. At the end of the day the most important questions is whether the witness is competent and qualified and the testimony factually and legally relevant to the case.

Kelly

Hanna, K., & Mazza, A. (2006). Discussion of the Committee on Daubert Standards summary of meetings. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).