Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Case Study

This is crucially important because it gives guidelines as to what evidence can be used in trial, and it keeps irrelevant facts from being introduced, which can confuse a jury change the outcome of a trial (Universal Class). There are so many distinct types of evidence that are allowed in court, but the most common are the following: demonstrative evidence, exculpatory evidence, physical evidence, and testimony. Demonstrative evidence has any representation of an object and is a form of common proof. Exculpatory evidence is a broader term meaning any evidence that gives favor to the defendant (Universal Class). One of the most scientific involved forms of evidence is pure physical evidence, which is any real evidence or material evidence that plays a role in the trial.

Forensic evidence has been shown to be reliable due to many factors of evidence such as DNA, blood, fingerprints, etc.; however, many cases have shown that

The case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals which took place back in 1993 was a case where two children were born with birth defects and blamed the Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Company saying its drug Bendectin caused the birth defects. The case played a major role in what was permitted in court as expert testimony. Merrell Dow had its own experts and research to say that its product never showed evidence of causing birth defects. But to challenge this, the parents had their own experts to say otherwise that in animal trials the drug did in fact cause birth defects. One of the things that helped the judges to determine their ruling was the Federal Rules of Evidence; this basically lays out what the scope of an expert

Behind every court case there’s a train of forensic science evidence and research. Forensic science is the application of scientific principles of criminal justice. In many court cases a forensic scientists is the one on the scene collecting finger prints, photos, blood samples and other evidence. Unfortunately one of the controversial issues in the forensic world is the evidence and its lack of verification of its reliability. In the field of forensics there are issues in finding proof in generating conclusion, fundamental knowledge to solve problems, and the whole false memory defense in the court. These issues can be solved in many ways like extensive research, preparation and training. These issues

between a cut (an injury that is longer than deep) and a stab wound (an injury

Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later

Physical evidence/scientific examinations is the evidence found at the scene of the crime. This can include clothing, blood, fingerprints, weapons and much more. An example of physical evidence could be any listed above but also a bloody knife or a casing from a bullet.

Across the United States it has been debated, for several years, which standard should be utilized in the court system: the Frye standard or the Daubert standard. It basically comes down to whether expert testimony should be presented in court based on wide acceptance or scientific proof. Both articles explained the Daubert standard as basically a stricter Frye standard, which could also be gathered from their definitions. It is due to the stricter and more outlined restrictions that the Daubert standard should be utilized in the Florida court system. The Daubert standard bases its criteria for expert testimony on proven scientific fact and reliability.

Challenges can come in many forms such as if no search warrant was obtained to support a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the validity and reliability of scientific evidence and how it was collected and maintained. In such cases, the investigator and lab technicians are usually called in to testify and explain the authenticity and standards of the procedure before the evidence is submitted (Swanson, 2012). The expert must be prepared to answer questions according to the Frye or Daubert standard of the states accepted standards for admissibility of both scientific and testimony evidence (Nierenberg, 2016).

Forensic science is a broad term that refers to the use of science or technology in a court room environment. Forensic science plays an important role in modern popular culture; the police procedural is highly dependent upon cutting-edge forensic science. Moreover, many people are aware of the impact of DNA testing on the modern criminal justice landscape. However, forensic science actually predates many modern scientific advances; almost as long as there have been controversies, there has been some type of forensic science.

Forensic science borrows from a number of sciences which include: physics, Biology and chemistry. It therefore involves examination of a wide spectrum as compared to any other method of investigation. Due to the wide spectrum of investigation and evidence analysis the method offers; it ensures that the results are accurate and can be used in the court of law to make a decision. The method establishes the existence of a crime, the connection between the crimes and the

Forensics is the use of scientific tests conducted on evidence that is used to aid a criminal investigation. Forensics is so important because without it either the wrong person could go to prison or the police could not arrest anyone, leaving the criminal to remain at large. Forensics allows insight into multiple factors that help catch the criminal behind the crime. Factors like DNA and fingerprinting are the very first piece of evidence to be looked at in an investigation to catch the killer. If the forensic scientists mix something up or misses what they are trained to look for, then they can do a lot of harm to a case. Forensics provides that very important physical evidence that will help the police catch the killer and bring that needed closer for the loved ones of the victim.

Evidence is defined as any matter of fact, the effect, tendency, or design of which is to produce in the mind a persuasion, affirmative or disaffirmative, of the existence of some other matter of fact that a crime has been committed.(Paul B. Watson, 1986) In a legal sense, evidence is the information presented in court during a trial which enables the judge and jury to decide a particular case (Garland & Stuckey, 2000). There are two main types of evidence, which are testimony and physical items which can be presented to the judge and jury during a criminal trial. Physical evidence is any evidence found at the perpetrator’s

Evidence plays a major role usually in trail of a case. Several types of evidence can be used. Evidence can be divided into two categories – Testimonial evidence and Physical evidence. Physical evidence is one type of such evidence; this evidence can be brought to court room for observation during trails. This is the most important evidence. Physical evidence is also known as real evidence, they consist tangible article from tiny microscopic to macroscopic evidence from large building to molecules in air. It can be in solid, gas or liquid form. Advances in forensic science have increased the use of physical evidence

Essential for understanding the acceptability of digital evidence is to understand two basic principles which are mentioned within the acceptability of digital evidence in courts. These are Daubert principle and Frye test. Daubert principle, as mentioned, replaced longtime used „Frye test“, and according to it, science and scientific methods are increasingly introduced as mandatory in expertise and presentation of digital evidence. American Rule 702, as part of the Federal Rules of Evidence, provides guidance on expert qualification and reduces the possibility of bias in expertise. Rule 702 of the American legislation is used as a preventive for possible speculations by experts, and which judge could use. In order to be properly informed and to be able to make decisions on the acceptability of digital evidence in court, and to understand expert witness testimony, the judges and the jury must own certain knowledge about information and communication technologies (ICTs) [1,2,3].