Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
What was the ruling?
No abuse of discretion to admit
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
"Given the evidence of Harder's training and proficiency testing, as well as evidence of her experience in the field of ballistics and toolmark analysis, we determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Harder was qualified as an expert in the area of ballistic and toolmark analysis."
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)
Discussion of 2016 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
702 discussion is from District Court hearing; Supreme Court recounts it then concludes it was not an abuse of discretion.