Skip to content

Davidson v. Cunningham, 2017 WL 3738560 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)

Case (cite)
Davidson v. Cunningham, 2017 WL 3738560 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)
Year
2017
State
New York
Type of proceeding
Federal habeas corpus
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
Summary of reasons for ruling
The court holds that there is no basis to conclude that the trial court's admission of the expert's testimony to "a reasonable degree of certainty" was erroneous because that type of testimony is routinely admitted in courts. The court notes that even if it was erroneous, it would not have substantially harmed the petitioner.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
N/A
Did lower court hold a hearing
N/A
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 (but see notes)
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

Note: there is no limiting testimony ruling, but the defendant argues that the issue with the tesimony was that the expert testified to “a reasonable degree of certainty” and should have been limited to testifying “more likely than not.”