State v. Raynor, 189 A.3d 652 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018)
Type of proceeding
Type of claim
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
What was the ruling?
Type of evidence at issue:
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Summary of reasons for ruling
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Did lower court hold a hearing
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)
Discussion of error rates / reliability
Limiting testimony ruling
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
Ruling on qualifications of expert
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
Ruling on 702(b) – the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
Ruling on 702(c) – the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
Defendant cited to the “more likely than not” case (Glynn) to support his contention that the expert’s testimony should be limited.
In Conn, irearms identification testimony does not need a Daubert-kind hearing (Porter hearing) to be admissble because “the scientific principles of ballistics and firearms analysis are very well established and can be admitted on a mere showing of relevance.” Legnani. Although Legnani was decided before NAS2009, the report, along with other similar reports, “did not overrule or otherwise abrogate the existing case law in this state; nor do the district court cases or the cases from other states that the defendant has cited in support of this claim.”
the importance of having defense experts: “more importantly, the defendant did not proffer his own expert witness to testify that the science of firearm and toolmark identification is not reliable.”
“The evidence admitted during the cross-examination of [the expert] included the flaws and criticisms of firearm and toolmark identification. The jury was free to give this evidence as much or as little weight as it saw fit.”
The court also denied defendant’s request to limit the expert’s testimony. The expert testified that out of 15 cartridge casings, 12 of them were “positively matched” and three of them failed to produce conclusive results.