The court found that the testimony here satisfied every Daubert factor. Specifically, the court found that “the AFTE theory is testable and has been tested.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Despite its recognition of the NAS2009 “claims for absolute certainty \u2026 may well be somewhat overblown[,]” the court nonetheless allowed the witness to link the projectile\/casing to a specific weapon.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
“While a definitive error rate has not been calculated, the information derived from the proficiency testing is indicative of a low error rate”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Court further recognizes, as did the National Research Council\u2019s report, that claims for absolute certainty as to identifications made by practitioners in this area may well be somewhat overblown. The role of this Court, however, is much more limited than determining whether or not the procedures utilized are sufficient to satisfy scientists that the expert opinions are virtually infallible. If that were the requirement, experience-based expert testimony in numerous technical areas would be barred. Such an approach would contravene well-settled precedent on the district court\u2019s role in evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n