Case (cite)
Ramey v. State, 2009 WL 335276 (Ct. Crim. App. Tex. 2009)
Ramey v. State, 2009 WL 335276 (Ct. Crim. App. Tex. 2009)
Year
2009
State
Texas
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
Ronald Crumley
Summary of reasons for ruling
Appellant argues that the expert testimony should have been excluded as the expert was not qualified and could not conclusively determine that the bullets were from a specific gun. The court finds that the appellant's arguments do no satisfy Daubert because they speak to the conclusions reached and not the methodology. Further, the court notes that the Kelly standard of general acceptance is satisfied and the expert had already been recognized as an expert by that court previously. The court also explains that the court has recognized the underlying theory as reliable for identifying individual firearms and that the expert here, although unable to testify to the exclusion of all other firearms, was able to testify to the exclusion of certain other firearms in a way that the jury could find that the bullet was fired from appellant's gun.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Daubert
Second standard
Rule 702
Did lower court hold a hearing
N
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
Y
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
Y
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N
Notes
Kelly standard: Such factors include “(1) the extent to which the underlying scientific theory and technique are accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community, if such a community can be ascertained; (2) the qualifications of the experts testifying; (3) the existence of literature supporting or rejecting the underlying scientific theory and technique; (4) the potential rate of error of the technique; (5) the availability of other experts to test and evaluate the technique; (6) the clarity with which the underlying scientific theory and technique can be explained to the court; and (7) the experience and skill of the person(s) who applied the technique on the occasion in question.”
“While Crumley was unable to determine whether any of the submitted bullets were fired from either of the firearms to the exclusion of all others, he was able to determine what bullets were not fired from certain guns. In comparing the types of bullets, guns, and gunshot wounds, Crumley was able to exclude specific bullet entries based on their lands and grooves. Placing his testimony with the rest of the evidence, a rational jury could determine the gun the appellant used during the shootings.”