Skip to content

Rues v. Denney, 2010 WL 1729181 (W.D. Mo. 2010)

Case (cite)
Rues v. Denney, 2010 WL 1729181 (W.D. Mo. 2010)
Year
2010
State
Missouri
Type of proceeding
Federal habeas corpus
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Other; Petition not timely filed
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
Petitioner argues that he was denied due process by admitting bunter mark evidence relying on constitutional law and on the NAS2009 report. The court holds the NAS2009 report is not newly discovered evience because the arguments it advances are not new, noting that the petitioner raised the arguments at trial and appeal. Further, the NAS2009 report does not specifically address bunter mark testimony. Given that the factual predicate of the claims was discovered in due dilligence, the petition was not timely filed.
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/A
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)
Y
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
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N

Notes

“The expert acknowledged that he could not give a statistical probability that the shells had the same source. ”