Case (cite)
State v. Seebold, 531 P.2d 1130 (Ariz. 1975)
State v. Seebold, 531 P.2d 1130 (Ariz. 1975)
Year
1975
State
Arizona
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Type of claim (second claim)
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Excluded
What was the ruling?
Correct to Exclude
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Defense
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
George Robert Bohm & Allen Timney
Summary of reasons for ruling
Trial court did not allow two defense experts to testify because the defendant failed to qualify them as experts. The court agreed saying, "In the instant case the two potential experts were not, we believe, experts in the field of ballistics. The fact that a person repairs guns, shoots them, and manufactures a gun part may make him more knowledgeable than the average citizen about guns in general, but it does not make him such an expert that it is an abuse of discretion to refuse to allow him to so testify."
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Other
Second standard
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)
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
N
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
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N
Notes