Skip to content

People v. Buckowski, 233 P.2d 912 (Cal. 1951)

Case (cite)
People v. Buckowski, 233 P.2d 912 (Cal. 1951)
Type of proceeding
Type of claim
Type of claim (second claim)
Due process
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
What was the ruling?
Correct to Admit
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Does not name
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant argues that the evidence does not justify the verdict because the expert testified that the gun marked each bullet fired in a different location but also testified that the markings were identical with those found on the recovered bullet. Defendant argues that because no photographs were introduced into evidence "the presumption of Code of Civil Procedure section 1963(6) arises to the effect that higher evidence would be adverse where inferior evidence is produced." The court disagrees and held that no more than oral testimony was required from the expert to support his conclusions. The court does not explain why.
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
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


No anlaysis. Just a one sentence conclusion that the expert does not need more than oral testimony.