Showing results 1-3 of 3.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Conflicting testimony concerning the conclusions drawn by experts, so long as they are based on a generally accepted and reliable scientific principle, ordinarily go to the weight of the testimony rather than to its admissibility."

  US v. Bonds - 6th Circuit

Decided: 12/15/1993
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

We note that although the findings of the magistrate judge and the district court were based only on the pre-Daubert Frye hearing and the general acceptance test, these findings are relevant to our examination under a Daubert analysis, first because, as the district court noted, neither the defendants nor the Government challenge the magistrate judge's findings regarding the substance of the expert testimony presented at the Frye hearing or his characterization of the testimony, and second, because general acceptance is still one factor the Supreme Court has said can impact on a court's scientific validity determination and the defendants' arguments on appeal focus on these findings and their general acceptance determination. ... The Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), has now rejected Frye's general acceptance test as the exclusive test and has redefined the standard for the admission of expert scientific testimony.[12]

Cited 146 times
Repetitive DNA sequences Classical genetics Molecular biology Statistical genetics Gangs 

  US v. Bonds - 6th Circuit

Decided: 12/15/1993

We note that although the findings of the magistrate judge and the district court were based only on the pre-Daubert Frye hearing and the general acceptance test, these findings are relevant to our examination under a Daubert analysis, first because, as the district court noted, neither the defendants nor the Government challenge the magistrate judge's findings regarding the substance of the expert testimony presented at the Frye hearing or his characterization of the testimony, and second, because general acceptance is still one factor the Supreme Court has said can impact on a court's scientific validity determination and the defendants' arguments on appeal focus on these findings and their general acceptance determination. ... The Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), has now rejected Frye's general acceptance test as the exclusive test and has redefined the standard for the admission of expert scientific testimony.[12]

Cited 119 times

  US v. Paulus - 6th Circuit

Decided: 3/7/2017

Unfortunately for the Government, despite clearing the Daubert hurdle and having the evidence admitted, the angiogram and expert opinion evidence failed to establish that the degree of stenosis is an objectively verifiable fact capable of confirmation or contradiction. ... Instead, the angiogram and expert opinion testimony was the quintessential "shaky but admissible evidence" that Daubert permits.

Cited 0 times