Case (cite)
People v. McKinnie, 310 N.E.2d 507 (App. Ct. Ill. 1974)
People v. McKinnie, 310 N.E.2d 507 (App. Ct. Ill. 1974)
Year
1974
State
Illinois
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Type of claim (second claim)
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Correct 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
Terry Lee Berg; Jack Housewart
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant argued that the could erred in allowing in nonexpert testimony. The court held that the two witnesses qualified as experts on the subject of the caliber of the gun which fired the shots based on their military and firearms experience.
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
N
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
Ruling on qualifications of expert
Y
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
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N
Notes
Not really “experts” — only asked to identify the caliber of the gun they heard gunshots from. “In view of the practical experience of these two witnesses, it does *1016 not appear to have been an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to have allowed the answers to the questions indicated. The experience of both men was considerably above that of the average person in the field of firearms and the opinions given in response to the indicated questions seem to be well within their competence based on their related experiences. ”