Case (cite)
United States v. Mikos, 539 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2008)
United States v. Mikos, 539 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2008)
Year
2008
State
Federal
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
Paul Tangren (FBI agent)
Summary of reasons for ruling
The Defendant argued that the expert's testimony should not have been admitted becaue he was not a qualified expert as he did not have any published literature and the FBIs weapons database was incomplete. The court found that publication and a complete database were not required under Daubert or 702, and that his testimony may not have been scientific, but it was technical and specialized and the district court did not err by finding that his methods were reliable.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Rule 702
Second standard
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
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
Y
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
Y
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
Y
Notes