Skip to content

Ragland v. Commonwealth,191 S.W.3d 569 (Ky. 2006)

Case (cite)
Ragland v. Commonwealth,191 S.W.3d 569 (Ky. 2006)
Year
2006
State
Kentucky
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:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Does not name
Summary of reasons for ruling
CBLA: The court held the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the CBLA testimony based on reports discrediting the reliability of the methodology. "If the FBI Laboratory that produced the CBLA evidence now considers such evidence to be of insufficient reliability to justify continuing to produce it, a finding by the trial court that the evidence is both scientifically reliable and relevant would be clearly erroneous, Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d at 917, and a finding that the evidence would be helpful to the jury would be an abuse of discretion."Firearms identification: Defendant argued that the expert's testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial because the expert could not state whether the bullets came from the specific gun due to damage. The court disagreed and held that the testimony was relevent to "dispel a possible claim that any .243 caliber Wetherby Vanguard rifle would have left the same markings on the murder bullet. . . . In other words, it provided additional circumstantial evidence that the Ragland rifle fired the fatal shot."
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Daubert; KRE 702
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Lundy (CBLA)
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
Tobin
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009) or PCAST report (PCAST)
N
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N
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
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
Y

Notes