Case (cite)
Barnard v. Henderson, 514 F.2d 744 (5th Cir.)
Barnard v. Henderson, 514 F.2d 744 (5th Cir.)
Year
1975
State
Federal
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Due Process
Type of claim (second claim)
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Excluded
What was the ruling?
Error to Exclude
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Does not say
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant argues that the court erred in denying his motion to allow inspection of the weapon and bullet by his own expert. The court agrees and holds that the trial court could not "sidestep" due process and erred by relying on Brady in denying the motion due to the evidence not necessarily being favorable to the defendant.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Second standard
Did lower court hold a hearing
N
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009)
Discussion of 2016 PCAST report (PCAST)
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
Ruling on qualifications of expert
N
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
N
Ruling on 702(b) – the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
N
Ruling on 702(c) – the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N
Notes