The qualifying phrase “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” was held to be enough to make a firearms identification testimony admissble under Daubert<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NAS2009: “Conclusions drawn in firearms identification should not be made to imply the presence of a firm statistical basis when none has been demonstrated. Specifically, \u2026 examiners tend to cast their assessments in bold absolutes, commonly asserting that a match can be made to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. Such comments cloak an inherently subjective assessment of a match with extreme probability statement that has no firm grounding and unrealistically implies an error rate of zero<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
PCAST: “Whether firearms analysis should be deemed admissble based on current evidence is a decision that belongs to the courts. If firearms analysis is allowed in courts, the scientific criteria for validity as applied should be understood to require clearly reporting the error rates seen in one appropriately designed black-box study. Claims of higher accuracy are not scientifically justified.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n