Skip to content

Redus v. State, 9 So.2d 914 (Ala. 1942)

Case (cite)
Redus v. State, 9 So.2d 914 (Ala. 1942)
Year
1942
State
Alabama
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
C.J. Rehling
Summary of reasons for ruling
"In these rulings of the court there was no error and in connection with this established expert witness' testimony the two photographs and bullets were offered in evidence, over objection and exception of defendant." "In the introduction of this evidence there was no error. It tended to explain the other evidence before the jury. It was a material inquiry as to whose pistol caused the death of the deceased, whether that of defendant or the other policeman. The nature and character of the respective pistols and the size and character of the bullets shot from said pistols were before the jury."
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
N/A
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) or PCAST report (PCAST)
N/A
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
Y
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

Very little reasoning for admitting the evidence was given.