Showing results 1-10 of 19.

  US v. Frazier - 11th Circuit

Decided: 10/15/2004
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part, Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert, the Supreme Court suggested that a trial court assessing the reliability of proposed scientific testimony might consider, among others, the following factors: (1) whether the theory or technique underpinning the expert's opinion "can be (or has been) tested"; (2) whether the theory or technique "has been subjected to peer review and publication"; (3) whether, with respect to particular theory or technique, there is a high "known or potential rate of error," and whether there are "standards controlling the technique's operation"; and (4) whether the theory or technique enjoys "general acceptance" within the "relevant scientific community." ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court "assign[ed] to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand."

Cited 419 times
Heuristics Applied sciences Rape Retailing Secondary sexual characteristics 

  Lees v. Carthage College - 7th Circuit

Decided: 4/16/2013
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In Daubert the Supreme Court interpreted an earlier version of Rule 702[2] and explained that it imposes a special gatekeeping obligation on trial judges with regard to scientific expert testimony. ... Although the district court did not explicitly trace and apply the framework of Rule 702, which guides the court's "gatekeeping" discretion under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the court's decision reflects an implicit reliance on the requirements of the rule, and we find no abuse of discretion with respect to at least some of the shortcomings the court identified in Dr. Kennedy's report.

Cited 96 times

  US v. Charley - 10th Circuit

Decided: 8/27/1999
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In Compton we had held that Daubert applied only to testimony "based upon a particular methodology or technique," 82 F.3d at 1519, not expert testimony based on the witnesses's training and experience. ... The majority holds that Defendant Charley's Daubert objections as to certain expert testimony were forfeited by failure to raise them until the petition for rehearing.

Cited 57 times
Sexual abuse Mammal female reproductive system Medical specialties Symptoms and signs: Digestive system and abdomen Sex crimes 

  Nichols v. American Nat. Ins. Co. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 9/8/1998
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Dr. Pribor was permitted to comment on Nichols' reliability "in the guise of a medical opinion," United States v. Whitted, 11 F.3d 782, 785-86 (8th Cir.1993), and this "impressively qualified expert's stamp" of untruthfulness on Nichols' story went beyond the scope of proper expert testimony. ... American National's closing argument went beyond what the dissent views as "fair argument" by using Dr. Pribor's testimony to suggest that recall bias and secondary gain had affected Nichols' descriptions of key events and by failing to adhere to the prior assurances that this part of the expert testimony was offered only on the issue of damages.

Cited 17 times
Psychiatric diagnosis Sex crimes Mental and behavioural disorders Forensic psychology Stress 

  US v. Simmons - 5th Circuit

Decided: 11/21/2006

Daubert held: when assessing the admissibility of expert testimony, trial courts must determine "whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue". ... First, as a general matter, "[t]o show that expert testimony is reliable... the government need not satisfy each Daubert factor".

Cited 11 times
Social sciences Rape Sexual abuse 

  US v. Redlightning - 9th Circuit

Decided: 10/25/2010
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The district court identified the correct legal standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony: Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... We conclude that the district court did not err in (1) refusing to suppress Redlightning's confessions; (2) excluding certain portions of expert testimony regarding the effects of hypoglycemia and PTSD on a confession; (3) excluding Dr. Leo's testimony regarding false confessions; (4) 1124*1124 excluding evidence that a police officer previously supplied a suspect with nonpublic information about the murder, excluding unreliable hearsay evidence pursuant to the residual hearsay exception that another suspect may have committed the murder, and excluding evidence of manual strangulations in neighboring King County; and (5) rejecting Redlightning's proposed jury instruction regarding the credibility, reliability, and truthfulness of his confessions.

Cited 10 times
Sexual abuse Rape Sex crimes Sexism Police misconduct 

  US v. Two Elk - 8th Circuit

Decided: 8/5/2008
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

"A district court ... enjoys broad latitude when it decides how to determine reliability, and [t]here is no requirement that the [d]istrict [c]ourt always hold a Daubert hearing prior to qualifying an expert witness." ... We hold that: (1) the district court did not plainly err by entering a judgment of conviction on both counts of the Indictment; (2) the court did not commit reversible error in admitting certain hearsay statements; (3) the court did not admit expert testimony without a proper foundation; (4) the prosecutor's alleged misconduct does not necessitate a new trial; and (5) the court properly enhanced Two Elk's offense level pursuant to the use-of-force enhancement.

Cited 9 times
Human behavior Sexual abuse Rape Sex crimes Sexism 

  US v. Forrest - 4th Circuit

Decided: 11/14/2005
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In assessing whether the expert testimony is reliable and relevant, a court should consider "(1) whether the particular scientific theory `can be (and has been) tested'; (2) whether the theory `has been subjected to peer review and publication'; (3) the `known or potential rate of error'; (4) the `existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation'; and (5) whether the technique has achieved `general acceptance' in the relevant scientific or expert community." ... He contends that Congress's Commerce Clause authority 76*76 does not extend to his private, intrastate production and possession of child pornography, and that the district court erred in admitting certain photographs and expert testimony.

Cited 9 times
Sexual abuse Sex crimes 

  Underwager v. Salter - 7th Circuit

Decided: 4/25/1994

The district judge assumed that Salter and Toth hold Underwager in low esteem and would be delighted to see his career as an expert witness in tatters, but the judge held that the undisputed evidence shows that Salter believes that all of her statements are true, that Toth believes that the statements in the Mr Bubbles tape are true, and that neither person acted recklessly in reaching these conclusions. ... In January 1990 she delivered to the New England Association a monograph titled: "Accuracy of Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: A Case Study of Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield."

Cited 9 times
Sexual abuse Defamation Human behavior Bullying Human sexuality 

  US v. Eagle - 8th Circuit

Decided: 2/4/2008
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In the instant case, the government designated Dr. Strong as its expert, and during a pre-trial conference, Jumping Eagle asked the district court to exclude her testimony regarding certain medical conditions suffered by J.J., such as whether the sexual abuse caused J.J.'s encopresis, or in the alternative, to hold a Daubert hearing to ascertain whether Dr. Strong's testimony regarding causation was supported by reasonable medical certainty. ... There is, however, no requirement that the district court always hold a Daubert hearing before qualifying an expert witness under Rule 702.

Cited 7 times
Human behavior Rape Sexual abuse Sex crimes Sexism