Case (cite)
State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376 (1881)
State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376 (1881)
Year
1881
State
Connecticut
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
Does not name
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant claimed the court erred in not permitting an expert to examine and make experiments with the pistol to see if he could ascertain from which one the fatal bullet was charged, but this state Supreme Court affirmed that this decision lay wholly within the discretion of the court and cannot be made the subject of error. "The judge may have thought it important that [the guns] should go to the jury just as they were."
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (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
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