Performance-based expert witnessing

Details Performance-based expert witnessing Performance-based expert witnessing

2001-05-10

2004-06-08

Robinson, Greta (Department: 2177)

Data processing: database and file management or data structures

Database design

Data structure types

C707S793000, C707S793000, C707S793000, C705S001100

Reexamination Certificate

active

06748399

ABSTRACT:

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Not applicable.
REFERENCE TO A MICROFICHE APPENDIX (USED WHEN A COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTING IS PROVIDED IN A MICROFICHE APPENDIX)
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The means of making physical evidence proof is forensic science—the application of science to legal processes, the application of science to crime fighting. The defense attorneys may persuade juries to find reasonable doubt, and suspects who had credible alibis. However, the physical evidence, DNA, is the silent, definite witness. Heralded as the most powerful and discriminating method of identifying the source of biological evidence available to the criminal justice system, forensic DNA testing has evolved both in the technologies it uses and its principles and theories to promote the reliability and courtroom admissibility. The development of DNA technology furthers the search for truth by helping police and prosecutors in the fight against the crime. Increasingly accepted, DNA technology is now widely used by police, prosecutors, defense counsel and courts in the United States.
To ensure the courtroom admissibility, DNA scientific evidence involves two general considerations: the acceptance of the science itself, called scientific validity, and the proficiency of expert witness. Furthermore, DNA scientific evidence must includes the analysis fact, principles, theories and the underlying data. Scientific facts, principles, and theories are presented and explained to the jury through expert testimony. Expert witnesses testify according to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Judges determine the scientific validity of scientific facts, principles, and theories. Judges are the gatekeepers to eliminate expert witnesses whose work is not scientific, peer reviewed, published, tested, or subjected to normal scientific scrutiny.
Forensic DNA testing properly applied is generally accepted as admissible under Fryel8 or Daubertl9 standards. As stated in the National Research Council's 1996 report on DNA evidence, “The state of the profiling technology and the methods for estimating frequencies and related statistics have progressed to the point where the admissibility of properly collected and analyzed DNA data should not be in doubt.” According to the Case Studies in Use of DNA Evidence, 46 States admit DNA evidence in criminal proceedings. In 43 States, courts have ruled on the technology, and in 3 States, statutes require admission. DNA Evidence Admission in Criminal Trials by State is as follows:
State
DNA Admitted
Alabama
Yes
Alaska
Yes
Arizona
Yes
Arkansas
Yes
California
Yes*
Colorado
Yes
Connecticut
Yes
Delaware
Yes
Florida
Yes
Georgia
Yes
Hawaii
Yes
Idaho
Yes
Illinois
Yes*
Indiana
Yes
Iowa
Yes
Kansas
Yes
Kentucky
Yes
Louisiana
Yes
Maine
No
Maryland
Yes*
Massachusetts
Yes
Michigan
Yes
Minnesota
Yes
Mississippi
Yes
Missouri
Yes
Montana
Yes
Nebraska
Yes
Nevada
Statute
New Hampshire
Yes
New Jersey
Yes*
New Mexico
Yes
New York
Yes
North Carolina
Yes
North Dakota
No
Ohio
Yes
Oklahoma
Statute
Oregon
Yes
Pennsylvania
Yes
Rhode Island
No
South Carolina
Yes
South Dakota
Yes
Tennessee
Statute
Texas
Yes
Utah
No
Vermont
Yes
Virginia
Yes
Washington
Yes
West Virginia
Yes
Wisconsin
Yes
Wyoming
Yes
*Decision by Intermediate Court of Appeals
The courtroom admissibility of the DNA scientific evidence requires that courts scrutinize the proposed testimony to determine its suitability for use at trial. It is the responsibility of the litigators to help the trier of the fact to recognize the basis and reliability of the experts' opinions.
The problems are that in a jury trial, the judge determines legal issues, and the jury determines the facts; in a non-jury trial, the judge determines both. The jury system relies on the common sense of the individual juror to balance the rational and emotional content of the information presented by the parties by comparing it on the basis of their personal life experience and their personal balance of rational and emotional factors.
As used in the legal phrase “finding of facts and conclusions of law,” the term “fact” does not refer to the actual, underlying facts, but only to those facts that were presented by the parties as admissible evidence at trial. The judge uses these facts to make decisions.
Close cooperation between litigators and experts is crucial, because the litigators must determine what scientific information a party presents, and the expert determines how to explain it.
Thus, the expert witness needs not only understand the science that they wish to present, but they should be able to apply it to the facts of the case, understand the needs and viewpoint of their audience, translate scientific facts and opinions accurately from professional scientific terminology so that the trier of fact will comprehend it, and recall the testimony at the time of the decision making.
The underlying definition of the expert witness is provided in Sections 702 of the Federal Law of Evidence and in the corresponding definitions of the Law of Evidence in every State: (Revised) Rule 702. Testimony by Experts (Revised Aug. 8, 1998, by the National Commission on Uniform State Laws, and submitted to the Federal Judicial Council). If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
(a) General rule. A witness may testify in the form of opinion or otherwise if the following are satisfied.
1. Basis for testimony. The testimony is based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.
2. Assistance to trier of fact. The testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand evidence or determine a fact at issue.
3. Qualification of witness. The witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education as an expert in the scientific, technical, or other specialized field.
4. Reasonable reliability. The testimony is based upon principles or methodology which is reasonably reliable as established under subdivision (b), (c), or (e).
5. Reliably applied to facts of case. The witness has applied the principles or methodology reliably to the facts of the case
(b) Reliability deemed to exist. A principle or methodology is deemed reasonably reliable if its reliability has been established by controlling legislation or judicial decision.
(c) Presumption of reliability. A principle or methodology is presumed to be reasonably reliable if it has substantial acceptance within the relevant scientific, technical, or specialized community. A party may rebut the presumption by proving that it is more probable than not that the principle or methodology is not reasonably reliable as provided in subdivision (e).
(d) Presumption of unreliability. A principle or methodology is presumed not to be reasonably reliable if it does not have substantial acceptance within the relevant scientific, technical, or specialized community. A party may rebut the presumption if it is more probable than not that the principle or methodology is reasonably reliable as provided in subdivision (e).
(e) Other reliability factors. When determining the reliability of a principle or methodology, the court shall consider all relevant additional factors, which may include:
1. Testing. The extent to which the principle or methodology has been tested;
2. Research methods. The adequacy of research methods employed in testing the principle or methodology;
3. Peer review. The extent to which the principle or methodology has been published and subjected to peer review;
4. Rate of error. The rate of error in the application of the principle or methodology;
5. Experience of expert. The experience of the witness as an expert in the application of the principle or methodology; and
6. Acceptance within the field. The extent to which the field of knowledge has substantial acceptance within the relevant scientific, technical, or spec

Affiliated with

Also associated with

Rating

Performance-based expert witnessing does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.

If you have personal experience with Performance-based expert witnessing, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Performance-based expert witnessing will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3351031