Skip to content

People v. Perez, 2019 WL 2537699 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)

Case (cite)
People v. Perez, 2019 WL 2537699 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)
Year
2019
State
California
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Correct to Admit; No Error due to Harmless Error
Type of evidence at issue:
firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Phil Teramoto
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant argued that because firearms identification is recently challenged by several scientific publications, it should be rendered inadmissible on the basis that it is not generally accepted with the scientific community. Appellate court dismissed the case because (1) the defense expert was able to tesify to all the issues raised by the said publications; (2) even if the trial court's rulinng was too restrictive, the error was harmless.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Kelly (Frye)
Did lower court hold a hearing
N
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
James Carroll
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
John Nixon, Kenneth Moses
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009) or PCAST report (PCAST)
Y
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N
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
N
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
N

Notes

2. PCAST report points out that there is no statistical foundation for the estimation of error rate in ballistics examination; 3. Many organizations, including the AFTE, the FBI, have criticized or expressed disagreements with the PCAST report.