Case (cite)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 2018 WL 5725226 (Sup. Ct. Pa. 2018)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 2018 WL 5725226 (Sup. Ct. Pa. 2018)
Year
2018
State
Pennsylvania
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Type of claim (second claim)
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Correct to Admit
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Todd Neumyer
Summary of reasons for ruling
Appellant aruges that the expert's testimony was based on faulty science. The record shows that the appellant failed to object to the testimony at trial and has therefore waived the claim on appeal. However, the court states that had it been preserved, it is still without merit because a panel of the court had previously dfound that ballistic matching evidence is generally accepted by the firearms expert comunity.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Rule 702
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
Y
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
Relies on Whitacre