No Scientific Evidence Or Expert Witnesses

The acquisition of evidence for a trial is an important step both parties take. However, some methods used to obtain such evidence can be debatable. In order to protect both sides from exploitation, a set of rules are set in place. This rule is called the Exclusionary Rule.

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

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.

HOLDING: The court actually abandoned the Aguilar-Spinelli test two-pronged test and held that When a court is making a decision to issue a search warrant, the question as to weather a person is “credibility/reliable” and where their “basis of knowledge” may have come from are to be used as guides when considering the “totality of the circumstances”and are and not requirements in every

The objection could be raised that does this expert witness pass The Frye Test and The Daubert Factors. Under Frye, experts determined the bounds of the reliability in their field. The expert is determined the bounds of reliability in this field of animal toxins. Under Daubert, the gate-keeping rule has been shifted to the judge. The judge will decide whether this expert's approach is sufficiently reliable to present to the jury. Depending on the judges feelings on whether or not Dr. Croak is truly an expert witness in his field will determine based on Frye and Daubert will an objection ultimately prevail.

Anti-scientific bias has been an American evidence law for several reason. Many of admissibility and legal sufficiency rules have been proved to be bias in America. This bias has been an underlying issue that typically for the citizen that become potential juror because they cannot critically evaluate the evidence like a highly professional would. In the results of a national educational test, it was demonstrated that there is a widespread in the United States of scientific illiteracy. With the principle of scientific proof, there has been a lot of controversy over drugs testing presents with forensic science and the unknown of the citizen who are posed as jurors during this time. This was a debate that the scientific community could help and

Childhood immunization is an important factor in today’s life, which is why it is important to be aware of the facts. After reading two articles, I came up with the conclusion that Ronald Bailey’s article “Refusing Vaccination Puts Others at Risk” presents a stronger argument than Sandy Reider article “The Science Is Not Settled.” One reason Ronald Bailey’s article is stronger is that Bailey has more authority than Reider. Sandy Reider who is a MD, general practitioner and primary care doctor practiced medicine in Vermont.

The question of Wheather Test Is applied equally to provide a fair Trial for the defendant and relevant in making the accused's 922(g)(1) status more probable than it would have been without the name evidence, and (2) the relevance, under Rule 401, of the name evidence is not affected by the availability of alternative proofs of the prior-conviction element, such as an admission by the accused; thus, if such name evidence is to be held inadmissible in the presence of other evidence, then the exclusion must rest not on the ground that the other evidence has rendered the name evidence "irrelevant," but on the character of the name evidence as unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or the like, its relevance notwithstanding. Were some sections of a document are relevant within the meaning of Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence Federal, and other sections of the

Texas Rules of Evidence (TRE) requires expert testimony to have expertise and qualifications regarding the information. TRE also requires that the information provided is a result of generally accepted techniques. An expert's testimony must meet the requirements to establish reliability. Mark Lebeau rushed an out of date EDTA test for the State of Wisconsin. Lebeau did do an internal review for the EDTA. However, the method used has not been peer reviewed. Should the court exclude Lebeau's unverified EDTA test

(367) This statement shows that legal actions have gradually improved throughout the years. One of the focal issues Schulz brings up is the idea that we change and contort evidence in light of the fact that it makes a difference to the person. Shaping our convictions on evidence and the assortment of fields (science, journalism, politics, and medicine), develops “specific and formal ideas about [it] -- what kind of information qualifies, how to gather it, how to evaluate it” (363). Yet to Descartes’ chagrin, “believing things based on paltry evidence is the engine that drives the entire miraculous machinery of

According to the article, Demonstrative Evidence legal Definition of Demonstrative Evidence, (2005), demonstrative evidence is other than testimony that is presented during the course of a civil or criminal trial. Demonstrative evidence includes actual and illustrative evidence. So many thing can be included in these categories but one good example that most lawyers use is a still photograph. Evidence that falls under this can be very useful to a jury in a physical injury case. There is also documentary and testimonial evidence. According to the article, Evidence, (2015), documentary evidence is a form of real evidence in document form such as a contract and testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and is the only kind that does not require a prerequisite for its admissibility. Testimonial evidence consist of witness testimonies, expert opinions and ever thing that is said in the court.

The best evidence rule is a rule that applies when someone wants to admit some form of evidence that is a document but the actual original document is not available for admission. Unfortunately, when this happen the party that wants to admit the evidence has to give an acceptable excuse to why the original documents are unavailable or absent. Therefore, the courts has to decide if the excuse is acceptable and allow the party to use their secondary evidence in order to prove their case or that the content of the document in order for it to be admissible as evidence in the case. Unlike, any other rule this rule only applies when a party is trying to prove that all of the content in the document is worthy of being admitted as evidence if the

Within the context of the Australian judicial system, all legal proceedings are subject to certain rules regarding the admissibility of evidence. In the mid 1990’s, the existing rules of evidence were replaced by the Uniform Evidence Act’s, as a means whereby consistency of decision making could be better observed. These new rules lay out standards which must be strictly adhered to, to ensure that the rights of both parties to a case are respected, allowing for a fair trial to take place. The specific act which will be used is dependent on the jurisdiction of the court itself; all High Court, Federal Court, Family Court, Federal Magistrates Court, and ACT courts are subject to The Evidence Act (Cth). The Tasmanian, New South Wales and Victorian Evidence Acts are marginally different from that of the Commonwealth, however generally speaking they are the same with a few minor differences .

May and Powles view evidence as ‘something’ which tends to prove or disprove something else. In the context of a trial this consists of information placed before the court for the purpose of proving or disproving facts in issue. Beecher-Monas states that in a system based on the rule of law and which aspires to ‘truth’, the accuracy and reliability of such information is essential. The mechanisms available to the court to determine the latter, centre on the presentation of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the observation of witness demeanour .

The rules of evidence are prescribed by Congress and can be found in Title 28 of the