Case (cite)
United States v. Johnson, 875 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 2017)
United States v. Johnson, 875 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 2017)
Year
2017
State
California
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
Mark Proia
Summary of reasons for ruling
First, Johnson argued that the expert misapplied the AFTE methodology. Cross-examination and inclusion of "reasonable degree of scientific certainty," however, provided "adequate safeguards." Second, Johnson argued that the AFTE methodology is inherently unreliable under Daubert, as the NAS findings illustrate. But because the district court has "broad latitude" to make admissibilty determinations, the court without further explanation concluded that this was not an abuse of discretion.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Daubert
Second standard
Rule 702
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)
N
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N/A
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
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
Notes