Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … legal issues faced by expert witnesses and the impact the Frye test has on scientific evidence proffered at trial. This essay also covers the decision that was reached by the courts concerning the fate of expert witness and expert testimony and some of the legal issue that affects the case.
Generally, every case which involves technical or scientific issues, or professional standards, will always need expert witness as well as expert testimony. There is non-uniformity in terms of the rules that evolved and the required standards concerning expert testimony, because they vary based on the jurisdiction. A number of times juries have been asked to provide a decision between the conflicting testimonies that have been provided by two or more expert witnesses, with the court either failing to give guidance or give little. Just as pointed out more than a century ago by Judge Learned Hand, "how can the jury judge between two statements each founded upon an experience confessedly foreign in kind to their own? It is just because juries are incompetent for such task that the expert is necessary at all." An ever-growing debate existed in the last half of the twentieth century regarding the standards that has to be applied to expert testimony as well as the safeguards that has to be applied in preventing abuse.
From the start, it is important to recognize the fact that there are three general areas of expert evidence. The first is on pure opinion expert evidence, the second is on scientific expert evidence, and the third is on non-scientific expert evidence, (Gordon J. Beggs, 1995). The governing rule of the admission may vary in each of them, both in terms of the standard for reviewing decisions of the trial court and the standards for admission. In every jurisdiction there a different formulated tests for admission...
However, recently the trend has been that the court scrutinizes expert evidence carefully as was appropriately put across by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in "In re Air Crash Disaster at New Orleans, Louisiana."
Policy question which are basic in affecting the very nature of trial lie behind decisions to receive expert testimony. Using the Federal Rules of Evidence, experts are required to explain the evidence and at the same time source of evidence themselves. " (W) e recognizes the temptation (on the part of the trial judge) to answer objections to receipt of expert testimony with the shorthand remark that the jury will give it "the weight it deserve".... Trial judges must be sensitive to the qualifications of persons claiming to be expert…."
It continues to sum up by acknowledging adhering to the deferential standard for review of decisions in regard to the admission of experts' testimony. Nonetheless, they caution that the standard has left the appellate judges with a considerable task. They will use a sharp eye to turn to the task, especially toward instances, which they hope few, as evident from the record that the decision to receive expert testimony was merely tossed off to the jury under a philosophy of "let it all in." The message which was sent to able trial was that they should identify that it was time to take hold of expert testimony in federal trials. Similar warning is equally applicable to state courts.
2. Rule
Generally, modern rules…
References
Gordon J. Beggs (1995) Evidentiary Standard For Reliability Of Novel Expert Proof. Retrieved June 29, 2014. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/exp08.htm
Jack B. Weinstein, (1986) Improving Expert Testimony, 20 U. Rich. L. Rev. 473, 482 (1986)
Paul C. Giannelli, (1980) The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half Century Later, 80 Colum. L. Rev. 1197, 1232.
[4] In connection with expert witnesses and evidence, the most significant has been the Daubert case of 1993. Prior to this case, federal and state court judges had only two standards on which to determine the admissibility of evidence. The first one was relevance and the other was known as Fyre standard according to which only scientific information, which was generally accepted by the community, would be admitted. Opponents of
Armstrong was unable to retreat to the safety of her environment to rebuild her mental strength and defenses and to begin to feel safe. Her environment became fearful, because she would wait there for Mr. Payne to return, and when he did, as she had feared, he began violently physically abusing her. Her level of fear and anxiety would have been high at the time Mr. Payne arrived home,
Some of the most important tools in the arsenal of the fire investigator include the senses of smell, touch, and physical manipulation. Likewise, the process of logical deduction often provides the correct forensic analysis of the evidence. Under Frye, crucial expert witness testimony relating to the practiced synthesis of the totality of circumstances disclosed by meticulous investigation is often excluded from use at trial. Certainly, Daubert provided additional flexibility of possible
The federal statutes with respect to witness testimony are the most extensive of the three measured. In some instances, the state statutes are based on older versions of the federal statute, which explains the omissions of some clauses. North Carolina has added an extensive section to Rule 702 in order to govern the use of expert testimony in cases of medical malpractice. While this is a matter of state jurisdiction,
"One U.S. Court said this of the problems with eyewitness identification: 'We think it is evident that an identification of an accused made by a witness for the first time in the courtroom may often be of little testimonial force as the witness may have had opportunities to see the accused and to have heard him referred to by a certain name; whereas a prior identification, considered in connection
Expert Determination By glancing at the economies and the trading patterns of the world it can be deduced that the investments made in the petroleum business, forms a radical majority; as it involves huge and many a times capital intensive projects. The facts indicate that the conditions, economies and the states that form the parties to the oil and gas contracts change integrally, this variation causes disputes. Energy in today's world