Skip to content

People ex rel. Stanton v. Meyering, 179 N.E. 122 (Ill. 1931)

Case (cite)
People ex rel. Stanton v. Meyering, 179 N.E. 122 (Ill. 1931)
Year
1931
State
Illinois
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
No error due to Harmless Error
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Calvin Goddard
Summary of reasons for ruling
Col. Goddard was cross-examined at great length, his testimony occupying over 70 of the 149 pages of the abstract, and its value was attacked both because, as it was claimed, there was no scientific basis for the conclusions which he drew from his comparison of the two bullets, and because he refused to take part in an experiment designed to test his ability to identify [***14] bullets with the weapons from which they had been fired. The qualifications of Col. Goddard and the admissibility of such evidence as he gave were considered in People v. Fisher, 340 Ill. 216, and the evidence was held competent, its value being for the jury to determine. We do not intend to cast any doubt upon the admissibility of the evidence or the qualifications of the witness, but in this case we regard the evidence as immaterial.
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
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Goddard
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
N/A
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009) or 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

Notes