Skip to content

People v. Jones, 34 N.E.3d 1065 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) [NO LONGER GOOD LAW AFTER SIMMONS]

Case (cite)
People v. Jones, 34 N.E.3d 1065 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) [NO LONGER GOOD LAW AFTER SIMMONS]
Year
2015
State
Illinois
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Excluded
What was the ruling?
Error 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
Justin Barr
Summary of reasons for ruling
because the expert's testimony lacked an adequate foundation where the expert testified that he found "sufficient agreement" but failed to testify to any facts that formed the bases or reasons for this ultimate opinion, the expert testimony was wrongly admitted
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Frye
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/A
Frye Ruling
Y
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
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
Y
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

“While toolmark and firearm comparison does not require a minimum number of points of comparison, there must be some explanation of the bases for the expert’s opinion. [I]t may be a better practice for experts to show a side-by-side photo comparison to aid the trier of fact while explaining the bases for such expert opinions.” Experts cannot give a “take my word for it” kind of testimony.