In Anatomy of a Murder, there were four expert witnesses, Dr. Smith, Dr. Harcourt, Dr. Raschid, and Dr. Dompierre, who testified during the trial and gave their respected opinions based on their expertise about the evidence and stipulations raised. An expert witness is defined as a witness who has special knowledge or training in a specialized area (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg.123). The opinion of an expert witness may be admissible if the opinion is being given about a subject that can clear issues in the court. To determine whether or not the expert witness testimony is admissible, it must meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence 702-704. In addition to reviewing each of the three Federal Rules of Evidence, I reviewed each of the four expert witness testimonies and analyzed whether or not each testimony complied each Federal Rule of evidence.
According to the Federal Rule of Evidence 702, A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case (Gardner & Anderson, 2013 pg. 523).
According to the Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opini...
... middle of paper ...
... this sense is not admissible, and therefore his testimony is objectifiable in this sense did not comply with the federal rule of evidence 704.
Identifying if an expert witness testimony has complied with the Federal Rules of Evidence 702-704 must be closely analyzed because not all parts of the testimony may comply. It is important that an expert witness testimony adhere to these rules because it forms the basis for what testimonies are actually of expertise (i.e. knowledge, training, education) and what opinions from the experts may be admissible in to court.
Works Cited
Fed.R.Evid 702 (a-d)
Fed.R.Evid 703
Fed.R.Evid 704 (a-b)
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2013). Criminal evidence: Principles and Cases (8th ed.).
Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Preminger, O. (Director). (1959). Anatomy of a Murder [Motion picture].U.S.A: Columbia
Pictures.
Brody, D., & Acker, J. (2010). Criminal Law (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Seigal, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2013). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases (8th ed.).
The legal system is not requiring the testifying professional to be 100% certain, but the criterion is “a preponderance of evidence that is more likely than not. All reports should state that the opinion given is based on “a reasonable degree of audiological
Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf
In a gist, the exclusionary rule prohibits the presentation of evidence that is illegally or unlawfully acquired. If proof was obtained in violation of the Constitution, a criminal defendant can strike it as admissible. Because the constitutional exclusionary rule covers a lot of aspects, it is often misleading.
Consequently, we attach hereto a copy of the Expert Witness Code of Conduct found at Part 5, Division 2, Rules 426, 427 and 428 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The Code of Conduct provides that a person engaged as an expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the Court impartially on matters relevant to the area of expertise of the witness, and that an expert witness is not an advocate for a
Lyman, D. Michael; Criminal Investigation, The Art and Science; 3rd edition, 2002 Prentice Hall. Pgs. 188-200.
Vallas, G. (2011). A survey of federal and state standards for the admission of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses. American Journal of Criminal Law, 39(1), 97-146. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.pioproxy.carrollu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s6222004&db=aph&AN=74017401&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Mossman Douglas & Noffsinger Stephen G. & Ash Peter & Frierson Richard L. & Gerbasi Joan & Hackett Maureen & Lewis Catherine F. & Pinals Debra & Scott Charles & Sieg Karl G. & Wall Barry W. & Zonana Howard V., AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vol. 35, Number 4, 2007.
Roesch, R., & Rogers, B. (2011). The cambridge handbook of forensic psychology. Canadian Psychology, 52(3), 242-242-243.
Gaensslen, R. E., Harris, H A., & Lee, H. (2008). Introduction to Forensic Science and Criminalistics. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. .