Case (cite)
People v. Daniel, 2014 WL 3844010 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014)
People v. Daniel, 2014 WL 3844010 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014)
Year
2014
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:
Ballistics trajectory/crime scene reconstruction
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Allan Avery, Reinhard Pope
Summary of reasons for ruling
defendant brought overall challenge on two experts' qualification and the realiability of their testimony, [qualification] after examining the testimonies offered during the evidentiary hearing, the court ruled that the experts had sufficiently demonstrated their qualification. [realibility] because the expert's testimony was based on the eyewitnesses's accounts & some math principles, there is no indication that it was not realiable.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
702
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Pope, Avery
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
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
N/A
Ruling on qualifications of expert
Y
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
Y
Ruling on 702(b) – the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
Y
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
Y
Notes