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.
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.
Seigal, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The reason being, the Supreme Court found that the expert evidence was not only useful, but was required to have a more in-depth understanding of the issues surrounding battered women. The rationale was, without expert testimony most people would be ignorant to spousal abuse. It was thought that without expert testimony, jurors would make assumptions about the stereotypes that may have been popularized by society as well ignore the importance of previous events that led up to the incident. Moreover, the trial judge charged the jurors properly, explaining that as long as there is some admissible evidence to establish the foundation for the expert 's opinion, he cannot subsequently instruct the jury to completely ignore the testimony. The judge also warned the jury that the more the expert relies on facts, not proven in evidence the less weight the jury may attribute to the opinion. Furthermore, expert evidence does not and cannot usurp the jury 's function of deciding whether, in fact, the accused 's perceptions and actions were reasonable. But fairness and the integrity of the trial process demand that the jury have the opportunity to hear that
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
Brody, D., & Acker, J. (2010). Criminal Law (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
...hed the car in places where contraband would not normally be found, but it had no relation to the discovery of the cocaine. The weapons found at the ranch are admissible due to the fact the agents had a warrant to search the ranch for drugs and weapons. The Lamborghini is not admissible due to the fact it was not covered by the warrant and the VID# was not in plain sight of the Agent doing the search. The statement made about trying to find Snow White would not be admissible in court because Agent Smith arrested Doe and started asking him questions about Doe's crime before Doe was read his Miranda Rights. Lastly, the statement Doe made about his supplier would be admissible in court because Doe was read his Miranda Rights and acknowledged his understanding of the rights and made a voluntary confession afterwards with no coercion on the part of the Agents involved.
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
Lyman, D. Michael; Criminal Investigation, The Art and Science; 3rd edition, 2002 Prentice Hall. Pgs. 188-200.
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.
Roesch, R., & Rogers, B. (2011). The cambridge handbook of forensic psychology. Canadian Psychology, 52(3), 242-242-243.
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
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
Gaensslen, R. E., Harris, H A., & Lee, H. (2008). Introduction to Forensic Science and Criminalistics. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. .