Skip to content

People v. Wilson, 994 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Case (cite)
People v. Wilson, 994 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Year
2014
State
New York
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
Does not name the expert
Summary of reasons for ruling
State's ballistics expert testified to victims' position when being shot (lying down on the alleyway). Defendant appealed arguing that the testimony was outside the expert's area of expertise. Court dismissed the challenge reasoning that the expert, who had 25 years of professional experience, was allowed to make a deduction (note: his opinion was qualified) based on the substance adhering to the bullets (which appears to be tar and plaster - note: no chemical test performed) on the victims' position.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Does not state standard
Did lower court hold a hearing
S
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
Frye Ruling
Y
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
the original testimony was qualified with "a reasonable degree of scientific certainty"
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
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

(this case actually sounds pretty shaky to me)

 

Here, the expert deduced that the victims were lying on the ground when shot because otherwise there would not have been enough force for the substance (which appears to be tar and plaster) to adhere to the bullets.