1994) to an analysis of bloodstain patterns at a crime scene State v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir. In addition to those subjects, courts have also treated as scientific evidence testimony on subjects ranging from the causation of a plaintiff’s cataracts O’Conner v. See Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, J. The Federal Judicial Center, for example, included in its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence essays on the broad topics of epidemiology, toxicology, survey research, DNA evidence, multiple regression, and estimation of economic losses in damages awards. The term “scientific evidence” covers a large variety of subjects. Porter recognized that some scientific evidence should be admitted even if not generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.īut what is scientific evidence? The Supreme Court in Porter at p 78-79 stated: Thus the reasoning behind abandoning Frye is that it was viewed as too restrictive a test for admissibility. We conclude that an admissibility test for scientific evidence premised solely on its “general acceptance” is conceptually flawed and therefore must be rejected. We are persuaded by these criticisms of the Frye test. Excluding scientific views simply because they are not “generally accepted,” without any further consideration of their validity, thus contravenes “the liberal nature. to demonstrate the reliability and acceptance of a once speculative and unproved premise.” State v. As with most scientific phenomena, the passage of time can serve. “`When photography was first introduced, it was seriously questioned whether pictures thus created could properly be introduced into evidence, but this method of proof, as well as by means of x-rays and the microscope, is now admitted without question.’. These critics observe that scientific pioneers and dissenters are occasionally right. probity.” “Developments in the Law – Confronting the New Challenges of Scientific Evidence” (“Developments in the Law”), 108 Harv. “cholars have criticized the Frye approach for being unduly conservative and for abandoning the fundamental evidentiary of. We note that even before the decision in Daubert, the Frye rule was widely criticized. Having concluded that Connecticut judges should exercise a gatekeeper function with regard to scientific evidence, we now briefly explain our conclusion that the Frye “general acceptance” standard is not adequate for this role. Why was the Frye test abandoned? The Connecticut Supreme Court in Porter at p74-75stated: Initially it is helpful to understand the background behind a Daubert/Porter analysis. Accordingly, the applicability of the Porter analysis and the necessity of a pre-trial hearing in a medical malpractice case can be gleaned only from the appellate courts’ few decisions involving this issue. The appellate case law in Connecticut is thin with regard to a Daubert/ Porter analysis or hearing concerning expert medical testimony in a medical malpractice case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |