Showing results 1-7 of 7.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"The term "scientific" as we use it in this opinion refers to evidence that draws its convincing force from some principle of science, mathematics and the like."

  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. Lyons - OR

Decided: 10/11/1996

In Brown, this court abandoned special tests for the admissibility of scientific evidence in favor of resolving the problem by relying on traditional evidence law as codified in the Oregon Evidence Code (OEC), specifically OEC 401 (relevance), OEC 702 (opinions of experts), and OEC 403 (exclusion of relevant evidence on ground of prejudice, confusion or undue delay). ... Both parties' experts testified that scientists conducting DNA research agree that the PCR method accurately and reliably replicates small samples of DNA. Gerdes, defendant's expert witness, testified that he had no problem with the validity of the PCR-based DNA tests.

Cited 18 times

  Brenner v. NOOTH - OR

Decided: 2/23/2017

As relevant to this appeal, the state argued that key parts of each expert's testimony amounted to scientific evidence and that, under the admissibility requirements for scientific evidence set out in State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984), and State v. O'Key, 321 Or 285, 899 P2d 663 (1995), their testimony would have been inadmissible in petitioner's criminal trial because it lacked valid scientific foundation. ... see also Cuevas, 263 Or App at 110 (expert witness's testimony not scientific where it was "explicitly framed in terms of [the expert's] own career, training, and experience," and "did not refer to studies, research, scholarly literature, or anything else that would cause a jury to infer that her testimony was based on more than her personal experience").

Cited 0 times

  State v. Henley - OR

Decided: 10/26/2016

In that case, the court drew a distinction between scientific evidence and other specialized knowledge that requires expert testimony, stating that, although "it is difficult to set a more definitive boundary between `scientific' evidence and `technical or other specialized knowledge,'" such a distinction exists. ... In Marrington, the court held that an expert's testimony regarding a child's delay in reporting sexual abuse would be perceived as scientific evidence by a trier of fact, and thus required a foundational showing of scientific validity before its admissibility.

Cited 0 times

  Com. v. Rodgers - PA

Decided: 2/26/1992

502, 512, 550 A.2d 561, 566 (1988) (where expert witness' opinion is not merely based upon personal views, or those of a small segment of the scientific community, testimony is not deficient merely because numerous experts were not called to testify). ... In order to determine the validity of appellant's contention that DNA/RFLP testing is scientifically unreliable, the trial court conducted four days of extended pre-trial hearings at which two experts testified on behalf of the Commonwealth: Martin Louis Tracey, Jr., Ph.D., and Kevin C. McElfresh, Ph.D.

Cited 0 times

  Com. v. Miller - PA

Decided: 10/20/1987

In the instant case, the Commonwealth did not present expert testimony regarding general acceptance of the scientific principle (i.e., consumption of alcohol causes nystagmus) upon which the HGN test is based. ... We disagree with the trial court's conclusion that prior to admitting HGN test results into evidence expert testimony was not required to establish an adequate foundation regarding its admissibility.

Cited 0 times

  Com. v. Apollo - PA

Decided: 1/9/1992

266, 582 A.2d 336 (1990) (Commonwealth was permitted appeal from pre-trial order granting motion in limine excluding testimony of Commonwealth expert where Commonwealth certified 457*457 that order substantially handicapped its prosecution); ... Dr. Sisson stated that he is qualified as a certified instructor on standardized field sobriety, and has testified several times as an expert witness on the HGN test.

Cited 0 times