|
|
|
October 1999 Volume 1 Number
3
Part 2 of Presentations
at the
2nd International Symposium on the
Forensic Examination of Questioned Documents
Albany, New York,
June 14 – 18, 1999
Appendix A: States Adopting
Daubert
Post-Daubert
Considerations in Document Examinations
P. C. Giannelli, A. J.
Weatherhead, and R. W. Weatherhead
Case Western Reserve
University
Cleveland, Ohio
Alabama. Ex parte Turner, __ So. 2d
__, 1998 Ala. Lexis 8 (Ala. 1998) (the state's DNA statute, Ala.
Code § 36-18-30, superseded the Frye-plus test adopted
in Ex parte Perry, 586 So. 2d 242 (Ala. 1991), and adopted
Daubert in its place. Frye, however, remains the
rule for other types of scientific evidence).
Alaska. State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386,
402-03 (Alaska 1999) (sound spectrograph; "voiceprints")
("We adopt the Daubert standard for determining the
admissibility of scientific evidence. We hold that the voice
spectrograph analysis evidence was admissible under Daubert
and the Alaska Rules of Evidence in this case.").
Connecticut. State v. Porter, 241 Conn.
57, 694 A.2d 1262 (1997) (polygraph) ("Our reasons for adopting
Daubert ..."), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1384
(1998).
Indiana. Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d
490, 498 (Ind. 1995) ("The concerns driving Daubert
coincide with the express requirement of Indiana Rule of Evidence
702(b) that the trial court be satisfied of the reliability of
the scientific principles involved. Thus, although not binding
upon the determination of state evidentiary law issues, the federal
evidence law of Daubert and its progeny is helpful to
the bench and bar in applying Indiana Rule of Evidence 702(b).").
Kentucky. Mitchell v. Commonwealth,
908 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Ky. 1995) (rejects Frye for Daubert)
(DNA previously admitted under the Frye test; "we
adopt the standard of review set forth in Daubert.");
Cecil v. Commonwealth, 888 S.W.2d 669, 675 (Ky. 1994)
(clinical psychologist testimony on mens rea properly
admitted under Daubert).
Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Vao Sok,
425 Mass. 787, 683 N.E.2d 671, 677 (1997) (DNA PCR - DQA, PM,
and D1S80); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807, 685
N.E.2d 739 (1997) (DNA-STRs); Commonwealth v. Lanigan,
419 Mass. 15, 26, 641 N.E.2d 1342, 1349 (1994) (DNA statistics
based on NAS Report "ceiling principle" admissible)
("We accept the basic reasoning of the Daubert opinion
..."). See also Commonwealth v. Sands, 424 Mass.
184, 185-86, 675 N.E.2d 370, 371 (1997) ("[A] party seeking
to introduce scientific evidence may lay a foundation either
by showing that the underlying scientific theory is generally
accepted within the relevant scientific community, or by showing
that the theory is reliable or valid through other [Daubert]
means.") (foundation for HGN test must be laid).
New Mexico. State v. Alberico, 116 N.M.
156, 861 P.2d 192 (1993).
New Hampshire. State v. Hungerford, 142
N.H. 110, 121, 697 A.2d 916, 922 (1997) (repressed memories)
("Also helpful are the considerations enunciated by the
United States Supreme Court in Daubert. …");
but see State v. Vandebogart, 136 N.H. 365, 374, 616 A.2d
483, 489 (1992) ("We adopted the Frye standard in
Coolidge. …").
Oklahoma. Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d
319, 328 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) ("[T]he time is right for
this court to abandon the Frye test and adopt the more
structured and yet flexible admissibility standard set forth
in Daubert") (DNA-RFLP match and statistical calculations
admissible).
South Dakota. State v. Schweitzer, 533
N.W.2d 156, 159 (S.D. 1995) (Daubert recognized in Hofer;
DNA statistics admissible); State v. Hofer, 512 N.W.2d
482, 484 (S.D. 1994) ("[G]eneral acceptance in the scientific
community is no longer required"; validity of intoxilyzer
"beyond scientific dispute").
Tennessee. State v. Begley, 956 S.W.2d
471, 475 n. 9 (Tenn. 1997) ("McDaniel held that the pre-Rules
of Evidence test of Frye … was superseded by the
adoption of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 702 and 703.") (DNA-PCR).
West Virginia. State v. Beard, 194 W. Va.
740, 746, 461 S.E.2d 486, 493 (W. Va. 1995) (polygraph evidence
still inadmissible under Daubert/Wilt standard);
Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W. Va. 39, 46-47, 443 S.E.2d 196,
203 (W. Va. 1993) ("Daubert's analysis of Federal
Rule 702 should be followed in analyzing the admissibility of
expert testimony under 702 of West Virginia Rules of Evidence";
excluded economist's calculations of hedonic damages), cert.
denied, 511 U.S. 1129 (1994).
Back to abstract
Back
to index
FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS OCTOBER 1999 VOLUME
1 NUMBER 3 |
