In Illinois, “a court may determine the general acceptance of a scientific principle\/methodology in either of two ways: (1) based on the results of a Frye hearing; or (2) by taking judicial notice of unequivocal and undisputed prior judicial decisions or technical writings on the subject.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Court commented on NAS2009 & PCAST: “[a]lthough the scholarly materials cited by defendants and the defendants in other cases may raise substantial criticisms of the methodology at issue in this case, no court has found these critiques sufficient to conclude the methodology is no longer generally accepted.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
“In short, in recent years, federal and state courts have had occasion to revisit the admission of expert testimony based on toolmark and firearms identification methodology. Such testimony has been the subject of lengthy and detailed hearings, and measured against the standards of both Frye and Daubert. Courts have considered scholarly criticism of the methodology, and occassionally placed limitations on the opinions expert may offer based on the methodology. Yet the judicial decisions uniformly conclude toolmark and firearms identification is generally accepted and admissible at trial.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n