Skip to content

Conley v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.2d 1094 (Ct. App. Ky. 1936)

Case (cite)
Conley v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.2d 1094 (Ct. App. Ky. 1936)
Type of proceeding
Type of claim
Type of claim (second claim)
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
What was the ruling?
Error to Admit
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Richard Potter
Summary of reasons for ruling
"As this man may be tried again, we will correct an error which appears in the evidence. Several bullets were picked up and dug out where this man-trip was stopped when it was fired on, and Richard Potter testified from a casual examination of one of them that it had been fired from a Winchester rifle which he had seen at Jesse Swinneys. The defendant's motion to exclude this was overruled, which was erroneous. This court has been most careful in admitting ballistic evidence. In Jack v. Com., 222 Ky. 546, 1 S.W.2d 961, we reversed a judgment where evidence had been admitted of a far more careful examination than this one, and we do not recall having ever approved the admission of such evidence where the examination was made with less care than that outlined in Evans v. Com., 230 Ky. 411, 19 S.W.2d 1091, 66 A. L. R. 360. The court should have awarded appellant a new trial."
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
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Richard Potter
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
Frye Ruling
Limiting testimony ruling
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
Ruling on qualifications of expert
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
Ruling on 702(b) – the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
Ruling on 702(c) – the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case