Skip to content

United States v. Foster, 300 F.Supp.2d 375 (D. Md 2004)

Case (cite)
United States v. Foster, 300 F.Supp.2d 375 (D. Md 2004)
Year
2004
State
Maryland
Type of proceeding
Trial
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Other; Trial court
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Paul Tangren
Summary of reasons for ruling
The court briefly described Tangren's explanation of each Daubert fact and said that both his testimony and the testimony by the firearms examiners with Baltimore City and County who performed the examination were sufficient. The court held that any issues could be subject of cross-examination and that the defendant could have offered their own expert but did not.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Daubert; 702
Did lower court hold a hearing
N/A
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Tangren
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009) or PCAST report (PCAST)
N
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N/A
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
Very brief 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
Y
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N

Notes

“While the differences in standards and practices among the FBI, Baltimore City, and Baltimore County firearms laboratories may be subjects for cross-examination, they were not sufficient to render the proffered testimony unreliable under Daubert. Similarly, the fact that an examiner may not recall or be able to explain to counsel’s satisfaction each aspect of a specific comparison he or she performed is material for cross-examination but not sufficient to exclude that opinion from the jury’s consideration. ”

 

“Moreover, the casings themselves are available for a defense expert to examine and offer a contrary opinion if warranted. No such opinion was proffered in this case.”