Evidence law

How or why some scientific evidence or expert witnesses are allowed to be presented in court and some are not can be rather confusing. However, there is significant reasons on why the decision was made. The three major sources that currently guide evidence and testimony admissibility: the Frye Standard, the Rule of 702; and, the Daubert Standard, as well as who can serve as an expert witness in a court of law. Daubert refers to the legal precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in 1993 which

testimony based upon opinions of their own or even their own analysis. Courts, however, are more lenient when it comes to including testimony by expert witnesses that provide testimony that falls within the realm of their own expertise. Cornell University Law School state that, in general terms, expert witnesses are provided the ability to testify about the opinions of a case given that their analysis that they use can be determined as 'scientifically sound' (n.d.). It is, however, important to identify

(Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, 2013). The expert witness may bear witness to that in the form of a judgment or else, if (1) the evidence is founded upon adequate evidence or statistics, (2) the evidence is the creation of dependable values and procedures, and (3) the witness has theoretical principles and procedures consistently to the evidence of the case (Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, 2013). However, as specified, the rule

the Department failed to address or issue an updated Notice. APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND DEPARTMENTAL POLICY 55 Pa Code § 275.4, in applicable part (g) Hearing proceedings. (2) Agency staff responsibility at the hearings. The County Assistance Office and other agencies as appropriate will prepare for the hearing so that evidence considered in making the decision or taking the action which is at issue and evidence that supports that decision or action will be introduced at the hearing in

testimony. The standards make sure that the evidence presented to the court used scientific methodology and if accepted science was used to gain the evidence. The Daubert Standard is the new paradigm shift in many states in the United States. It took the place of the Frye test, which was used for many years before. The Daubert standard is the better test to use in courts because it makes the experts present more evidence to make sure that the science or evidence was not faked. The Frye Test is used

over forensic science in criminal justice and it’s credibility. Criminal justice system relies on forensic evidence, which includes bite-mark and hair analysis, to convict criminals. People began questioning the legitimacy when the FBI admitted to the flaws in hair analysis in hundreds of cases that occurred over decades before the 2000s. Not only those cases but many others in which the evidence was not scientific legitimate. According to The National Registry of Exonerations, more than 2,000 people

tape-recorded statement to the police describing the stabbing, even though Crawford had no opportunity for cross-examination. The State sought to introduce a recorded statement that petitioner's wife Sylvia had made during police interrogation, as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense. Sylvia did not testify at trial because of Washington's marital privilege. The tape was played at trial, but she did not testify, testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of

that are commonly encountered, and judges the subject’s reactions along the way. The interviewer’s goal in building credibility is to convince the subject that he or she is caught of committing a crime without stating any accusations or revealing evidence. The third phase is to create an opportunity for the subject to save face and transfer blame. The interviewer guides the subject into telling the truth. The goal is to make the subject feel better about admitting the truth by finding a socially

According to Computer Evidence Recovery (2015), these phases can take from 7 to 14 days per hard drive to complete. Finally, DFI will provide AMS with a final report of its findings. It is imperative that this report is written in a clear and concise manner for AMS management

facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and (3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court; (e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and (f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by law to administer the same. Sec. 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. – (a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn