Showing results 1-3 of 3.
Cases using phrasing similar to:
"This court adheres to the rule that the reliability of scientific evidence must be shown as a prerequisite to its admission."
In Frye v. 733*733 United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.1923), the question before the court was whether an expert witness for the defendant could testify as to the result of a "systolic blood pressure deception test". ... The thrust of Frye and of the court's opinion in Canaday 734*734 is to prevent expert witnesses from testifying as to the truth of statements obtained by scientific methods unless there has been an acceptance by the scientific community of the underlying principles of the procedure.
To prove that appellant vandalized the car the State presented circumstantial evidence of: (1) a thumbprint identified as appellant's which was found on the inside of the Mustang's gas filler door; (2) human, but unidentifiable smudges on the outside of the gas filler door; (3) a fingerprint expert's opinion that the location of the smudges and the the thumbprint was consistent with a right hand opening the gas filler door, implying that the print and smudges were placed on the door contemporaneously; (4) testimony by the expert regarding the weather and road conditions on the day preceding the fire when the vandalism occurred, implying that the smudges were fresh; (5) testimony and exhibits indicating that raw sugar (the brand was not identified) had been poured in the gas tank; (6) testimony that raw sugar was sold at a market where appellant had shopped on occasion located one-half block from appellant's apartment, plus a picture of a brand which was on sale at the market; ... The State's expert used a novel methodology of gas chromatography to compare samples of accelerant from the fire scene to gasoline from a 2-gallon can found in appellant's car, gasoline from appellant's car, gasoline from the Mustang, and gasoline from three gas stations located near appellant's apartment, in an attempt to determine the source of the accelerant.
Seattle argues that acceptance of the Doppler effect by the scientific community is so widely known that the court can take judicial notice of it and expert testimony is unnecessary. ... A number of cases so hold. One of those is State v. Doles, 70 Ohio App.2d 35, 433 N.E.2d 1290 (1980), where the Ohio court reversed a conviction for speeding, relying upon its prior decision in State v. Wilcox, 40 Ohio App.2d 380, 319 N.E.2d 615 (1974).