Case (cite)
People v. Mitchell, 29 P. 1106 (Cal. 1892)
People v. Mitchell, 29 P. 1106 (Cal. 1892)
Year
1892
State
California
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?
Error to Admit
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Defense
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Vance
Summary of reasons for ruling
It is error for the court to allow a gunsmith to testify, as an expert, that in his opinion a certain cartridge had never been in a pistol, because he saw no mark on it, and that a ball assumed to have been from a pistol was not similar to another ball taken from the head of the deceased, or to describe the balls which were in court and shown to the jury. Such matters are not properly the subject of expert testimony, but are for the jury to pass upon.
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
Y
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
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
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N
Notes