|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAUBERT Forensic science may help
you keep a level playing field in court.
Have you heard of the
“Daubert” ruling (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
(92-102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993))? It
represents a landmark Supreme Court decision that changed the acceptance of
scientific data in the courtroom.
Before it, pretty much anyone could testify as an expert if they
simply knew more about a particular subject than a layperson (Frye
Rule). That all dramatically changed
with Daubert. It is a given that there
are flaws in some procedures used in today’s forensic
laboratories. In addition, scientific
results do not always represent absolute truth. There is not always a scientific answer
even if scientific procedures are utilized.
This allows forensic examiners the ability to reach qualified opinions
and differences of opinions. Add to
that the possibility that an individual examiner used poor technique or had a
bad day, and you then develop an understanding of why Daubert became
necessary. Daubert forces a testifying
examiner to meet certain criteria before being allowed to testify. In addition, trial judges have been given
the responsibility of being the “gatekeeper,” allowing or
disallowing testimony after evaluating the following five items: 1) whether
the method consists of a testable hypothesis; 2) whether the method has been
subject to peer review and publication; 3) the known or potential rate of
error of the technique or theory when applied; 4) the existence and
maintenance of standards and controls; and 5) whether the method is generally
acceptable within the relevant scientific community. To date, Daubert challenges
have been brought in cases involving fingerprinting, handwriting, ballistics,
bite mark analysis, The evolution of the
Daubert decision was due and it will undoubtedly serve the community well by
ensuring that expert witnesses truly act as experts. |
|
|
