Essay > Words: 2954 > Rating: Excellent > Buy full access at $5
ADMISSIBILITY OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE
Admissibility of evidence from forensic science requires the side that is preferring the evidence to show that the Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 702 and the Daubert were followed. Therefore, the expert witnesses that are testifying needs to carefully consider how they are demonstrating they have achieved the requirements that are necessary. Ultimately, the court is to ask the expert to prove the methods they used and the derived conclusion and whether they are reliable. Demonstration that they used procedures that are properly done, and the methods that were used were vetted properly, and that there are known rates of error, that also the expert received training that is appropriate, and so forth, are essential for the information coming from the examination of the expert to be admitted by the court as the human society develops. The evidence. In most instances, experts are questioned about their level of certainty on their opinions and conclusions (Fisher, 2016). The paper will argue against the admissibility of the forensic science evidence and the techniques used in describing the evidence in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ~ 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786. Moreover, the paper will incorporate and discuss the university’s core values as appropriate.
The Case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc
The petitioners, who were two young children (Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller) with their parents, in their suit against their defendant (Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals) that grave birth defects of the children were the results of the prenatal ingestion Bendectin by their mother. This was a drug prescription that was being promoted by the respondent. The district court granted a summary judgment to the accused based on their expert affidavit which was well credentialed, making a conclusion upon reviewing scientific Literature that was extensively published on the subject, that the maternal usage of Bendectin has not been demonstrated at all to be a risk factor for birth defects on human beings. The plaintiffs made a response to the testimony by eight other credentialed experts. The experts on the side of the petitioner based their arguments that Bendectin can cause birth defects on chemical structure analysis, animal studies, and unpublished re-analysis on human statistical studies that were previously published. In their determination, the court found out that this evidence presented by the plaintiff was not meeting the general acceptance standard that are applicable for the expert testimony to be admissible. The court of appeals affirmed and agreed, citing Frye v. United States, 54 App. D. C. 46, 47, 293 F. 1013, 1014, Indicating that the opinion of the expert is not admissible based on a Scientific technique unless the technique that was used is accepted generally as reliable and in the relevant community of science (CULS, 2018).
Arguments against the admissibility of the forensic science evidence and the techniques used in describing the evidence in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc
The admissibility of risk assessment standards within the legal frameworks. The essay explores the forensic evidence depends on the principle of its basis. That is, it has been established sufficiently that it has a general acceptance in the scientific field where it is belonging. The evidence presented by the petitioners did not meet this set standard. Given the Existing data on epidemiology that is vast in regard to Bendectin, any opinion of the expert that is not based on the epidemiological evidence is inadmissible for establishing a causation. Therefore, the chemical structure analysis, live animal studies, and the animal cell studies on which the petitioners were relying on cannot raise reasonable disputable jury issue by themselves in regard to causation. The epidemiological analysis of the petitioners was also based on data recalculations on the studies that were previously published but they did not find a causal link between birth defects and the drug. This also makes these evidences by the petitioner to be inadmissible because they had not been subjected to .............
Type: Essay || Words: 2954 Rating || ExcellentSubscribe at $5 to view the full document.
Buy access at $5