Marsha Case Study

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

Facts: Shepard, defendant, was charged and convicted of the murdering his wife. Prosecution introduced statement Shepard’s wife made to the nurse as evidences during the trial. Shepard’s wife told her nurse stating that her husband had poisoned her. She also asked the nurse to find the whiskey bottle from defendant’s closet and perform the poison test which she had drunk from. The prosecution introduced the wife’s conversation based on the state of mind exception and dying declaration exception under the hearsay rule. Shepard appeared.

These questions are suggested to determine whether the expert’s opinion is admissible as the expert evidence is based on established field of expertise. By asking if the expert has received special academic experience and had relevant time of experience or observation in DNA analysis which is relevant to the case, the court will consider if the expert opinion is sufficient to gain general acceptance in the DNA profiling area and if it is admissible to take the expert’s opinion regarding to the case.

The State is presenting Kelli McDonald against the defendant to testify to her lab report. Similar to Dodd and Melendez-Diaz, the defendant in this case has the right to cross-examine Kelli McDonald regarding her capacity as a chemist on his case and her present capacity capacity in order to display the possibility of impropriety. Since Kelli McDonalds’s lab report and testimony belong to the core testimonial class of evidence, her testimony directly relates to the defendant’s defense because there is a break in the chain of custody when the Sheriff’s department’s exerted control over the evidence could display the possibility of

“‘Under this statute, the reviewing court shall determine only: (1) the legality of the decision and (2) whether there was substantial evidence from the record as a whole to support the decision.’” Thomas v. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 170 Md. App. 650, 657 (2006) (quoting Dep’t of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation v. Hinder, 349 Md. 71, 77-78 (1998)). Moreover, “[w]e ‘may not reject a decision of the Board supported by substantial evidence unless that decision is wrong as a matter of law.’” Thomas, supra, 170 Md. App. at 658 (quoting Hernandez v. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 122 Md. App. 19, 23 (1998)).

Statement of Facts “Twelve Angry Men” is a fictional story which tells of story of jurors deliberating over if the teenage son who was accused of murdering his father. The evening of the murder the defendant and his father had an argument. The father hit the son like he did many times in the past. After this encounter the defendant left the apartment. At approximately at midnight witnesses state they saw the stabbing and hearing the defendant yell, “I'll kill you.”

may not have occurred exactly in reality, were written in parallel to true conditions and treatments of

I actually just heard from Heidi Cave, Marshanika’s worker. Per her worker, Marshanika has been on the Acute Unit at Beacon, for the last week. She was admitted there due to her aggression towards staff and peers. According to her worker, Marshanika have not acted out since being admitted to Beacon. I informed the worker, that we are wanting to admit her Thursday, if not we will move on to the next client on the

During the time of assessment the patient presents drowsy. The patient reports during the time of assessment that he is not currently suicidal or homicidal. The patient reports that he hears voices telling him to kill him self and kill his wife. However, the patient reports that he loves his wife and do not wish to harm her. The patient reports that tonight that him and his wife got into an argument, however

R V Bonnie Taylor- some degree of confidence ought to be had in jury system. The jury must have understood from the judges attempts to shut down the applicants attempt that the judge disapproved of it and therefore that the jury should disregard it.

A) The court should gather the data returned from the lab tests and determine if the claims being advertised by the product are deceiving or

In all cases, Courts list four criteria that should be used when deciding if scientific testimony should be admitted. The four criteria are: whether the technique improving falls through data collection, whether the scientific findings have been subjected to a parent view, how often a test or technique produces incorrect results, and whether the conclusions are generally excepted in the relevant scientific community (p. 15).

Based on the articles, for expert testimony to go through in the court all a witness needed using the Frye standard was have whatever technique, principle, or procedure be generally accepted in the scientific community. I do not feel like this is enough qualifications in any scientific field especially in the field of forensic science. The procedure or technique used needs to be proved reliable and can give consistent results, not just be accepted by the community. Also, with the Frye standard no one is checking and reviewing the witness’ procedure or technique to see if it’s reliable, accurate, or the error rate for it. It seems the courts just assumed what is being said or shown is correct and deemed it expert testimony. The Frye standard was limited in the possibility of new ideas and methods since the make or break of being accepted as expert testimony was reliant on

(b) that those personal injuries were caused by the act or omission of some person.”

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).