Case (cite)
Commonwealth v. Whitacre, 878 A.2d 96 (Sup. Ct. Pa. 2005)
Commonwealth v. Whitacre, 878 A.2d 96 (Sup. Ct. Pa. 2005)
Year
2005
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
Jack Wall
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant argues that the expert's testimony should have been excluded under Frye. The court disagrees that this methodology of matching is neither new nor novel, has been used since the 1930s, and is widely accepted in the firearm expert field.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Frye
Second standard
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Wall
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
Y
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