Legal Precedents and Admissibility of Forensic Evidence

What is the definition of a legal precedent?

• A rule of law established for the first time by a court

• A rule of law established by the legislative branch

• 
  A rule of law established by the executive branch

• 
  A rule of law established by the scientific community

What is the purpose of using precedent cases in the legal practice?

• To confuse juries and steer them away from true scientific findings

• To provide consistency between cases and guide future court decisions

• To exclude scientific evidence and expert testimony from court proceedings

• To determine the admissibility of forensic evidence in court

What does the Frye case establish in terms of admissibility of scientific evidence?

• Scientific evidence must have general acceptance in the scientific community

• Scientific evidence must be based on published books and papers

• Scientific evidence must be tested and subjected to peer review

• Scientific evidence must assist the trier of facts in deciding the issues at hand

What is the significance of the Frye case?

• It established the admissibility of scientific evidence in court

• It established the role of expert testimony in court

• It established the importance of peer review in scientific research

• It established the use of fingerprint evidence in court

What is the significance of the Daubert case?

• It challenged the centrality of the Frye standard and set a new standard for admissibility

• It limited how far an expert may stray from the data or commonly accepted practice

• It ruled that the judge is the gatekeeper for determining the admissibility of scientific testimony

• It required the actual individual who ran the analysis to testify in person

What are the three standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert testimony under the Daubert standard?

• Scientific Basis, Relevance, and Judge as Gatekeeper

• General Acceptance, Methodology, and Intellectual Rigor

• Testing, Peer Review, and Widespread Acceptance

• Sufficient Establishment, Connection, and Application

What did the Joiner case establish in terms of the gap between data and expert opinion?

• The court may conclude that there is too great a gap to allow the opinion into court

• The court must make certain that an expert employs the same level of intellectual rigor

• The expert may extrapolate from existing data but must connect it to the data itself

• The expert's conclusions and methodology are separate and must be admitted together

What did the Khumo case determine about the application of the Daubert standard?

• The Daubert standard only applies to scientific testimony, not skill or experience-based testimony

• The Daubert standard applies to all expert testimony, regardless of the field

• The Daubert standard requires the judge to determine the scientific validity of the testimony

• The Daubert standard requires the expert to have the same level of intellectual rigor as others in the field

What recent Supreme Court decision added a new requirement for the admissibility of forensic evidence?

• Frye v. United States

• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

• General Electric Co. v. Joiner

• Melendez-Dias Case

What was the argument made by the defense in the Melendez-Dias Case?

• The actual individual who ran the analysis must testify in person

• The evidence should be excluded due to lack of scientific validity

• The expert testimony did not meet the Frye standard

• The expert's conclusions were not connected to the data