Skip to content

People v. Brown, No. 323887, 2016 WL 2731069 (Mich. Ct. App. May 10. 2016)

Case (cite)
People v. Brown, No. 323887, 2016 WL 2731069 (Mich. Ct. App. May 10. 2016)
Year
2016
State
Michigan
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:
Gunshot residue
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Stephanie Horner
Summary of reasons for ruling
[reliability]: defendant argued that the state's expert testimony was not reliable because the specific software program that the expert used was not subject to peer review, the court dismissed the challenge, reasoning that peer review and publication of a theory or technique are not always necessary to meet the Daubert standard. Here, although the expert was no sure whether the software was peer-reviewed or not, she testified that it was modeled on the publication from the Scientific Working Group on Gunshot Residue and was approved by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directorsl; and that should be enough for the trial court to make a reasonable decision on its admissibility. [relevance]: evidence is admissible if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable" (very low standard).
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Daubert; MRE 702
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Horner
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
Y
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N/A
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
(2)
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
Y
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N

Notes

The expert also presented evidence of one-component and two-component particles (a gunshot residue particle must contain lead, barium, and antimony). Defendant argued that their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger or unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. The court disagreed, reasoning that because the expert clarified in her tesitmony that she could not definityively say re the origin of those particles, it was correctly admitted.