Case (cite)
State v. Shine, 113 N.E.3d 160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
State v. Shine, 113 N.E.3d 160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
Year
2018
State
Ohio
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
Jonathan Gardner
Summary of reasons for ruling
The recent challenge to comparative ballistics analysis does not render it "junk science" and does not impact the existing legal standards for admission of expert testimony in this field.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Daubert
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)
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
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
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
Notes
“We note that the scientific basis for comparative ballistics analysis has received increased scrutiny in recent years. However, that does not render firearms examination analysis ‘junk science’ and does not impact the existing legal standard for admission of expert testimony in this field.”