About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


43 Tulsa L. Rev. 417 (2007-2008)
Meeting the Challenges of the Daubert Trilogy: Refining and Redefining the Reliability of Forensic Evidence

handle is hein.journals/tlj43 and id is 425 raw text is: MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE DAUBERT TRILOGY: REFINING AND REDEFINING THE RELIABILITY OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE Mara L. Merlino,* Victoria Sprnger *Jan Seaman Kell Derek Hammond, Eric Sahota, & Lori Haines I. INTRODUCTION Daubert1 and its progeny, General Electric Co. v. Joiner2 and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,3 established new guidelines and procedures for determining the evidentiary reliability of expert testimony. Following the Daubert trilogy, the admissibility of expert testimony is presumably based not only on an analysis of the evidence's legal merits and Frye's general acceptance standard,4 but also on the judicial analysis of the qualifications of the expert, the methods by which the expert arrives at his or her conclusions, and even the conclusions themselves.5 Judges' interpretations of their gatekeeping responsibilities under the Daubert trilogy have imposed more objective, stringent requirements (relevancy, legal sufficiency, and reliability) for the admissibility of some kinds of evidence which for * To whom all correspondence concerning this article should be addressed, Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies, University of Nevada, Reno, MS 313, University of Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, (775) 784-6272, mara@unr.nevada.edu. The authors would like to thank Grant Sawyer Center graduate research assistants Valerie Lykes, Lyssette Chavez, and Josey Vargas for their hard and careful work on the content analysis of case law. ** Graduate Research Assistant, Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies and doctoral student in the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program in Social Psychology at the University of Nevada, Reno. *** Forensic Scientist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, and Executive Council member, Skill-Task Training, Assessment & Research, Inc., Las Vegas, NV, qdwatchdog@aol.com. **** Forensic Document Examiner, United States Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, Forest Park, Georgia, and Executive Council member, Skill-Task Training, Assessment & Research, Inc., Las Vegas, NV, Derek.Hammond@us.army.mil. ***** Forensic Scientist, Latent Print Detail, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, E9932S@lvmpd.com. ******Forensic Scientist, Latent Print Detail, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, L9931H@lvmpd.com. 1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 580 (1992). 2. 522 U.S. 136 (1997). 3. 526 U.S. 137 (1999). 4. Frye v. US., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 5. See Margaret Berger, The Supreme Court's Trilogy on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony, in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 11 (2d ed., Fed. Jud. Ctr. 2000); Michael H. Gottesman, From Barefoot to Daubert to Joiner: Triple Play or Double Error? 40 Ariz. L. Rev. 753 (1998); Joseph Sanders et al., Legal Perceptions of Science and Expert Knowledge, 8 Psychol. Pub. Policy & L. 139 (2002).