Showing results 1-2 of 2.
Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Both concede that their test results have not been duplicated elsewhere and neither was able to cite any authority in the field in support of their positions."
Reasoning from Brown, appellant contends that although the oil matching techniques testified about at trial are not new, the use of these techniques to analyze sewer samples has not reached the level of general acceptance that establishes an acceptable basis for the introduction of expert testimony in a criminal trial. ... With regard to the first inquiry mentioned above, the court concludes from the record that the methods employed by the experts who testified in the instant case, namely gas chromatograph analysis performed in conjunction with the various detectors, is a generally accepted method of matching oil samples.
In summary, we note that in the instant case we are dealing with the testimony of an expert in the area of his expertise, whose work in the narrow area at issue has been published and adopted by local, state and federal agencies across the nation. ... With this background, training, and his on-the-job experience with the 1204*1204 ATF, Peterson had previously qualified as an expert in state and federal courts approximately fifty (50) times.