Showing results 1-2 of 2.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Notwithstanding the usual deference to trial court discretion, we as an appellate court retain our role to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Oregon Evidence Code."

  State v. O'key - OR

Decided: 7/7/1995

Given the degree of congruence of Brown and Daubert, we find the aspects of the Daubert decision discussed above to be persuasive, and we adopt them. Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, an Oregon trial court, in performing its vital role as "gatekeeper" pursuant to OEC 104(1), should, therefore, find Daubert instructive.[29] ... 680*680 In Daubert, the Supreme Court pointed out that, in assessing a proffer of expert scientific testimony under FRE 702, a trial court should also be mindful of other applicable evidentiary rules, such as FRE 703, 706, and 403.

Cited 32 times

  State v. O'KEY - OR

Decided: 9/1/1993

A number of experts testified that nonalcohol induced jerk nystagmus caused by disease or brain damage occurs in three to four percent of the population, although it is generally nonsymmetrical (one eye only), whereas alcohol-induced nystagmus is the same in both eyes. ... Typically, scientific evidence is presented by an expert witness who can explain data or test results and, if necessary, the scientific principles that are said to give the evidence its reliability or accuracy.

Cited 5 times