Case (cite)
State v. DeJesus, 436 P.3d 834 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019)
State v. DeJesus, 436 P.3d 834 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019)
Year
2019
State
Washington
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
N/A
Summary of reasons for ruling
because (1) the academic reports introduced by the defendant do not affec the general scientific acceptance of ballistic identification (the problem they espouse bear on the question of reliability of the individual test and tester at issue) (2)courts from around the country have unversally held that toolmark analysis is generally accepted, the testimony in this case is admissible without a Frye hearing.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Frye
Second standard
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)
NAS2009
Discussion of 2016 PCAST report (PCAST)
PCAST
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
Y
Limiting testimony ruling
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
Y
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
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
N
Notes
on PCAST report: it acknowledged its own dubious value to courts, “judges decisions about the admissibility fo scientific evidence rest solely on legal standards, they are exclusively the province of the courts and PCAST does not opine on them.”