Daubert Standard Research Paper

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

Unfortunately, these shows also create a false expectation that clear and definite evidence can be shown for any case, which is not true. Jurors expect every case to have thorough scientific evidence from the best and most modern technology and to look exactly as it does on a television show (Shelton). Radford said, “Science does not operate on certainties.” During an investigation, scientists don’t ever say that the DNA being tested is a “match” to the suspect because nothing can ever be a definite match. Instead, their vocabulary consists of phrases such as

The rationale behind its application was to find the best evidence within a case but due to fraud and the mishandling of evidence this rule was created. It helps to prevent anyone from trying to mislead or even lie about a certain piece of evidence. Furthermore, it eliminates anyone from having to guess if in fact that the evidence is from the actual original copy of if some part of the evidence had been changed at some point in order to get a guilty or innocent verdict in the case.

R. Evid. 702. See, e.g., John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis, 817 N.W.2d 150, 166 (Minn. 2012) (the “theory forming the basis for the expert's opinion or test [must be] reliable.”); State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764, 768 (Minn. 1980) (hypnotized subjects are exposed to outside influences so the use of hypnosis-induced evidence lacks scientific reliability); Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800, 816 (expert's methodology failed to include review of plaintiff's medical records and relied upon non-peer reviewed battery of tests performed six years after the fact). The hallmark of a reliable and admissible expert opinion is one that is based upon a scientifically valid methodology. Goeb, 615 N.W.2d at 809. Pursuant to the Rules, expert opinion testimony must be based on facts or data. See Minn. R. Evid. 703(a)-(b)(a)(“The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. (b) Underlying expert data must be independently admissible in order to be received upon direct examination; provided that when good cause is shown in civil cases and the underlying data is particularly trustworthy, the court may admit the data under this rule for the limited purpose of showing the basis for the expert's opinion. Nothing in this rule restricts admissibility of underlying expert data when inquired into on cross-examination.”). According to the advisory committee note, “the requirement that the facts or data be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field provides a check on the trustworthiness of the opinion and its foundation. In determining whether the reliance is reasonable, the judge must be satisfied

Texas Rules of Evidence (TRE) requires expert testimony to have expertise and qualifications regarding the information. TRE also requires that the information provided is a result of generally accepted techniques. An expert's testimony must meet the requirements to establish reliability. Mark Lebeau rushed an out of date EDTA test for the State of Wisconsin. Lebeau did do an internal review for the EDTA. However, the method used has not been peer reviewed. Should the court exclude Lebeau's unverified EDTA test

The admissibility of expert testimony from the past to the present, The Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 702 (1975) the revision of Rule 702 (2000) and (2010), Frye v United States (1923), Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., v Carmichael (1999).

Clostridium Difficile, or C. diff, is a common occurrence in hospitals. But how does one know that they are in fact dealing with a patient with C. diff and not just diarrhea? It all lies in the symptoms. C. diff diarrhea has a distinct odor. The patient also feels a constant urgency, a need to always go to the restroom. The stool contains mucous. Beyond that, most patients will present with a low grade fever, mild leukocytosis, hyperactive bowel sounds, and mild abdominal tenderness. (Headly, 461)

The West Australian adversarial system was inherited from Britain as a result of colonisation. The origins of the system itself can be traced back to disputes in medieval times being resolved by jousting tournaments, presided over by the king . After centuries of progress, the current adversarial system can be described as “a legal system based on the principle that justice is best served by allowing competing parties to present their arguments to an impartial third person for adjudication.” While this model is favourable in many ways, there are also weaknesses in its finer details that may benefit from adaptation or reform. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the alternative system of law, the inquisitorial system.

Franz Schubert was an Austrian composer, a native of Vienna. His early musical training in piano and violin lessons came from his father, and his older brother, who were both school teachers (Brown p. 752). Later, he studied under the Viennese court composer Salieri (Brown p.753). After college he became a teacher at his father's school. He detested the teaching profession because it took time away from his compositions. His most prolific year was 1815 during which he wrote 145 songs, including the famous Erlkönig.

When it comes to the Daubert standard, the judge’s task involves determining if an expert’s testimony is both relevant and reliable. In the Proffer case, the testimony involves a forensic scientist, testifying that the defendant’s fingerprint matches the latent print on the gun cartridge. Arguably, knowing the individual that used the gun at the crime scene satisfies the relevance requirement. When it comes to the theory or technique’s reliability, there are five factors to consider (tested?, peer reviewed?, error rate?, standard?, widespread acceptance?). The technique involved in this case is ACE-V. First off, ACE-V is considered to be a standard that virtually all fingerprint examiners abide. In addition, the ACE-V protocol is tested (replicated

Denis Diderot was born on 5 October 1713 and died on 31 July 1784. Denis was a French philosopher, art critic, and writer. He was a prominent figure during the Enlightenment and is best known for serving as co-founder, chief editor, and contributor to the encyclopedia along with Jean le Rond d’Alembert. Diderot's literary reputation during his lifetime rested primarily on his plays and his contributions to the Encyclopedia; many of his most important works, such as Jacques the Fatalist, Rameau's Nephew, and D'Alembert's Dream, were published only after his death.

Charles Dutoit is one of todays most sought-after conductors, having performed with all of the major orchestras on most stages of the five continents.

“Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it can diminish its value.”  (Harris vs. United States, 1947).

I think graphicconception is correct that gravity is a good example, he just doesn't understand what he's talking about. Let's say I'm going to build a large building--should I care about whether Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or perhaps string theory provides the most accurate description of gravity? Hardly, if I want to get any jobs as an architect or structural engineer. For my building design the science of gravity is certainly "settled" and I can go right ahead and design a building based on the approximation that gravity is constant. It doesn't matter to me that it's still an active area of investigation by physicists.

2) Originally the Frye test was established to help determine the competency of evidence but was quickly replaced by the Federal Rules of Evidence with the main rule of competency being Rule 702.