septimus:
If I can add some gasoline to the flames (
Did not prosecution have experts ready to testify that screamer was probably Martin? Shouldn’t the jury have been presented with this and contrary opinions, and then been allowed to make its own judgment?
I grasp that some evidence is of poor quality, but where does one draw the line? A fine distinction by judge can make a big difference in outcome. Surely it’s not like NBA refereeing where after calling a close one against one team, the judge calls the next close one the other way? :dubious: :smack:
The expert who wanted to testify that the screamer was probably Martin used a specific analytical technique, one that was very new. In fact, he had invented it. It had not gained any particularly wide-spread acceptance in the scientific community.
The standard for admissibility of a particular scientific test or technique varies in the United States, and in many states, that’s a fatal defect. I wrote a long explanation of the process last year:
The intersection of science and the law is interesting.
When DNA testing was in its infancy, there was a period when scientists knew they could reliably match biological samples to people to a vanishingly small error rate. And lawyers - defense lawyers, mostly - were arguing that the results should not be heard in court, because they were unreliable.
There are two different tests used in the United States judicial world to govern the admissibility of new scientific tests, methods, or techniques. In the federal system and many states, the Daubert test reigns. Based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , 509 U.S. 579 (1993), it’s a relatively lenient standard that grants the trial judge a fair degree of latitude in admitting evidence. Basically, if “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in 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…” in other words, the judge can permit an expert to testify about his theory, period.
There is a more restrictive standard, and Florida uses it: the Frye standard, based on Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). This standard requires:
[ol]
From Ramirez v. State , 651 So. 2d 1164 (Fl. 1995).
So the key difference: Frye requires that the science to have reached a stage of general acceptance in its field — basically, that it not be novel or controversial. Daubert merely requires that an expert can be found and qualified to explain it.