1. The review standard re admissibility of evidence in Missouri: “[W]e will not disturb this [broad] discretion unless it is against the logic of the circumstances and so unreasonable as to show a lack of careful consideration.” 2. In determinating the realiability of expert testimonies, Missouri adopted the same flexible Daubert standard, “[n]o single factor is necessarily disposiive of the reliability of a particular expert’s testimony.” 3. The court acknowledged NAS2008’s potential challange to firearms identification’s scientific validity, but ruled that not enough to render the testimony inadmissble. “[Defendant] was free to challenge [the expert’s] conclusions and point out the weakness of analysis to the jury during cross-examination on the basis of this report . . . However, weight and credibility are the province of the jury . . . Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissble evidence.” (internal quotation ommitted)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n