Skip to content

Commonwealth v. Walker, 2018 WL 1024012 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 2018)

Case (cite)
Commonwealth v. Walker, 2018 WL 1024012 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 2018)
Year
2018
State
Pennsylvania
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
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
Defendant argues that the court erred in denying his objection the degree of scientific certainty being testified to. The court declines to reassess the admissibility of firearms evidence, stating that the court had previously held that ballistic matching was generally accepted by the scientific community of firearms experts, therefore there was no abuse of discretion.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
702
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) or PCAST report (PCAST)
N
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N/A
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
Y
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
N/A
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