CMRJ341

150 words agree or disagree 

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

The Daubert Standard stems from three cases Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., General Electric v.Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael.  This standard in known as the gatekeeper rule for judges to follow.  It is an evaluation of scientific evidence that is based on the reliability of what is considered “good science”.  This standard follows 4 rules, if the scientific theory can be tested, if it is subject to peer review and publication, what the rate of error is, if the theory has received the acceptance of the scientific community (Sapir, 2007).  What this standard does is brings forth a way of qualifying what is to be considered expert witness testimony.  The evidence that is presented by a forensics expert must go be validated through the Federal Rules of Evidence (Zimmerman, 2011).  The impact that this had on scientific evidence can be traced to the 10 steps that follow Rule 702 in the Federal Rules of Evidence.  Without this standard, someone who claims to be an expert with credentials that cannot be verified could sway the courts.  It is believed that due to the popularity of crime scene investigations in television and movies that the juries are wanting the forensics investigators to bring more information that what they can actually do.  Hollywood has made claims that cannot be obtained in the real world, and with this standard, they are explaining that to the jury and judge during the trial and not having evidence used that does not meet the standard and making sure that the suspect and victim are given the best representation possible to ensure a fair trial.  

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

For a forensic expert to prepare for court, they are given the Voir Dire questionnaire.  A sample questionnaire found with Gil Sapir states that there are 30 questions that must be answered prior to accepting the individual as an expert.  The questions will allow the individual to be identified, bring forth their credentials and experience, how many tests they conducted and what purpose these tests were conducted for, if they belong to any institutions or if they are affiliated with any entity that may bring into question the reasons behind their findings, and they will submit a resume to the courts.  Once the information is received by the courts, the prosecution and defense will then determine if the person can be counted on as an expert or if their testimony is not going to be included.  Once they receive the approval, they will go through their testimony with the notes from the investigation they performed and bring all notes that were taken during the investigation.  They will present themselves professionally and not allow the case to become personal.  When in court, the expert will need to answer the questions they are asked in a manner that would not bring any doubt to the judge or jury.  There can be no confusion as to what they found and the expert needs to be prepared to answer questions that are designed to trap them into contradicting themselves.  Going through a pre-examination with the Attorney’s is key to the success of the questioning.  The attorney will prepare the expert for cross-examination as well.

References:

Faigman, D. L., Slobogin, C., & Monahan, J. (2016). Gatekeeping science: Using the structure of scientific research to distinguish between 1admissibility and weight in expert testimony. Northwestern University Law Review, 110(4), 859-904. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1809934424/fulltextPDF/D7C5516A2DDF45F3PQ/1?accountid=8289

Kuchler, D. D. (2010). An In-Depth Look at Direct Examination of Expert Witnesses. FDCC Quarterly, 60(2), 151.  Link: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/DirectofExpert.pdf

Sapir, G. I. (2007). Qualifying the expert witness: A practical voir dire. Forensic Magazine, 30-38.  Link: https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2007/01/qualifying-expert-witness-practical-voir-dire

Zimmerman, R. L. (2011).  10 best of good laboratory practices for forensic facilities: A key to satisfying Daubert's gatekeeper and rule 702.  Forensic Science Policy & Management, 2(4), 187-197. doi:10.1080/19409044.2012.706688