Showing results 1-3 of 3.
Cases using phrasing similar to:
"The fate of a defendant in a criminal prosecution should not hang on his ability to successfully rebut scientific evidence which bears an "aura of special reliability and trustworthiness," although, in reality the witness is testifying on the basis of an unproved hypothesis in an isolated experiment which has yet to gain general acceptance in its field."
The critical question is whether the district judge abused his discretion in admitting Ciupik's expert testimony, which was based on calculations made from a photograph originally used by defendant in support of his allegedly perjurious alibi testimony and a chart marking the sun's path as viewed from Chicago on the twenty-second day of each month. ... There is no question 755*755 that Ciupik was qualified as an expert in astronomy by knowledge, skill, experience and education and, as such, was eligible to express an opinion on the subject which was "beyond the ken of the ordinary layman."
They thus stand in contrast to nonspecific "symptoms" of child abuse relied upon by experts in other cases, such as nightmares, crying spells, bedwetting, difficulty in school, weight loss, unstable family relationships, general anxiety, and the like, which obviously could be the result of emotional trauma caused by problems other than child sex abuse. ... Although analysis of the problem escalates rapidly into a state of juridicial complexity, it begins on rather mundane territory with two well-established principles: first, that a trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony and, second, that the decision to allow such evidence 197*197 cannot be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that the trial court has abused its discretion.
The issues presented are of statewide importance because they impact the type of expert testimony presented in most DUI cases. ... Patrick Chavez, a criminalist from the Phoenix police department crime lab, provided the state's expert testimony.