Term
|
Definition
| A system for acquiring knowledge. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Observation and research
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experiment
5. Conclusion |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a. Assumes that the basic law you are arguing is applicable in all cases |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The use of experimental observations. Based on the idea that all concepts emanate from experience and that all statements claiming to express knowledge must be based on experience rather than theory. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Confrontation assures accurate forensics analysis
2. Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation
3. Criminal defendant's right to confront the witness includes the right to challenge state crime lab technicians on cross examination
Melendez v. Massachusetts |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Nancy grace made up some shit and got busted. Prosecution trying to create junk scientific evidence about arson |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
"General Acceptance Test"
1. Court recognized evidential force of scientific principles.
2. Court defers to the scientific community and a scientific principle's general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. |
|
|
Term
| General Acceptance within the scientific Paradigm |
|
Definition
1. When a question about scientific or specialized knowledge does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but require special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witness skilled in that particular science, art, or, trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence.
2. The Frye Court faced the question of when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult.
"The thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs" |
|
|
Term
| Federal Rules governing scientific evidence |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Daubert v. Merrell Down Pharmaceuticals |
|
Definition
| Facts which courts should consider in determining if proffered scientific evidence testimony would assist the trier of fact |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Can the theory upon which the testimony is based be tested?
2. Has the theory upon which the testimony is based been subjected to peer review?
3. Has the theory upon which the testimony is based been assigned a potential rate of error?
4. Has the theory upon which the testimony is based attained general acceptance within the scientific community? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Georgia test in criminal cases is whether or not the theory of scientific procedure rests upon the laws of nature.
Verifiable certainty that the tests are reliable. Abuse of discretion is the standard :/. |
|
|
Term
| Reliability standard under FRE 702 |
|
Definition
1. Scientific, technical, or otherwise specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact if:
a. The witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill experience, training or education to testify based on opinion
1. Is the testimony based on sfficient facts or data?
2. The teistimony is the product of reliable principles and methods?
3. Witness has applied the principles and methods |
|
|
Term
| Civil standard for expert testimony in GA |
|
Definition
A qualified expert witness may testify if:
1. Testimony is based on sufficient facts or data which are or will be admitted into evidence at the hearing or trial
2. Product of reliable principles and methods; and
3. Witness has applied the principles and methods |
|
|
Term
| General Electric Co. v. Joiner |
|
Definition
1. Trial Judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence is relevant and reliable
2. Abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review of a district court's evidenciary rulings
3. FRE allows district courts broader discretion of admissibility under fry |
|
|
Term
| Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael |
|
Definition
| Judge's gatekeeping role applies not only to scientific evidence, but to errythang. |
|
|
Term
| U.S. v. Brumley (DEA agent opinion) |
|
Definition
1. Subjective belief or unsupported speculation
2. Agent's opinion was not based on any professionally sound or reliable underlying methodology
3. Agent merely voiching for the credibility of one of the co-conspirators
4. Agent's opinion testimony highly prejudicial |
|
|
Term
| Expert Opinion and the ultimate issue (in Georgia) |
|
Definition
| 1. Expert opinion on the ultimate issue is admissible where the conclusion of the expert is one which jurors would not ordinarily draw for themselves |
|
|
Term
| U.S. v. Mamah (Ghana cheats at soccer) |
|
Definition
| 1. Area of testimony must fall within the scope of the person's work as an expert. |
|
|
Term
| Methods used by the Court to allow in Scientific evidence |
|
Definition
1. Admissibility tests
2. Judicial notice of acceptability of a scientific procedure
3. Legislative recognition of admissibility of a scientific test of procedure.
4. Use of stipulations of admissibility of evidence relating to a test |
|
|
Term
| Three factors used to decide to admit expert testimony |
|
Definition
1 Is the expert qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address?
2. Is the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusion sufficiently reliable?
3. Will the testimony assist the trier of fact, through the application of the scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine the fact at issue. |
|
|
Term
| Three things required of experts under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |
|
Definition
1. Must provide reports at defendant's request FRCP 16(f)
2. Must provide summary of testimony under FRE at defendant's request, 16(g)
3. Must provide witness list, and reports FRCP 26 |
|
|
Term
| Foundation of Expert Testimony |
|
Definition
1. There must be a foundation for proof of accuracy,
People v. Tobey - in this case, it was voice spectrograph and there was not a proper foundation. |
|
|
Term
| Jefferson's v. State (GA 2 prong test for proponent of evidence) |
|
Definition
1. Technique is valid
2. Person who performed the technique did so in an acceptable scientific manner |
|
|
Term
| Challenging Scientific Evidence and Testimony |
|
Definition
1. Is a particular test or procedure required?
2. Did the witness comply with that procedure?
3. If not, what effect does the non-compliance have on the witnesses testimony? |
|
|
Term
Legislatively Mandated Admissibility Rules
(Intoxilyzer, State v. Krause) |
|
Definition
| Manufacturer's certificate is not prima facie evidence that equipment works properly for a presumptive showing that an intoxilyzer works |
|
|
Term
| Three types of Experts to lay a proper foundation (qualifications of an operator or performer of Scientific tests) |
|
Definition
1. Teaching witness
2. Application witness
3. Interpreting witness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Testifies to the theory or instrument's validity but does not connect the case |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Testifies whether the theory was properly applied in this case, (usually the one that conducted the test or applied theory) |
|
|
Term
| Probability and Certainties of Opinions |
|
Definition
| 1. Probability - chance of a particular event |
|
|
Term
| Statistics and hair analysis |
|
Definition
| Can say "similar." Cannot fucking match. Do not let the prosecutors get away with this. |
|
|
Term
| Probabilities and GA court |
|
Definition
1. No mathematical computations to likelihood of guilt.
2. Error to permit probabilities on fiber evidence
3. Statistician who just talked to doctors can't give sids evidence.
4. Have to give probabilities with DNA because without it, it's useless. |
|
|
Term
| Non fungible stuff (Chain of Custody) |
|
Definition
1. Strict showing of chain of custody is not required where exhibit is non-fungible.
* fungible - the property of an item of evidence in which individual units are capable of substitution. |
|
|
Term
| Chain of custody requirements |
|
Definition
1. Foundation - reasonable probability that item is in the same condition as the time of commencement of hte chain of custody
Chain -
1. receipt,
2. ultimate disposition,
3. and safeguarding and handling between receipt and disposition |
|
|
Term
| Break in Chain of custody |
|
Definition
Renders evidence inadmissible unless the broken link was "weak."
It then goes to weight, not admissibility. |
|
|
Term
| Satisfying the burden in chain of custody |
|
Definition
States has burden, but FRE 901 requires the govt. needs only to prove a rational basis for concluding that an exhibit is what it claims to be.
Standard of review is abuse of discretion |
|
|
Term
| Brief review of Daubert standards |
|
Definition
1. Testability
2. Peer review
3. Potential Error rates
4. General Acceptance.
*Joiner - judges can determine reliability of expert's reasoning process as well as expert's methodology.
*Kumho Tire - gatekeeping is ALL experts |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Whether the directed lie control technique can be and has been tested
2. Whether the directed lie control technique has been subjected to peer review?
3. Known error rates?
4. Existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation?
but too bad, per se exclusion. Not reliable, only allowed if stipulated. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Allowed? Look to:
1. Was it to refresh memory or was it part of therapy?
2. Was the witness suggested?
3. Was the hypnotist properly qualified?
4. Is there corroborating evidence?
5. Was the subject even hypnotizable?
6. Any evidence of reliability? |
|
|
Term
| Per se rule of hypnotism exlusion? |
|
Definition
| Infringes on the defendan'ts right. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Too unreliable to be admissible. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Can be classified by race - caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid.
2. Human hair follicles contain DNA - the root is where the cells cling to it, not the hair itself, the fresher the fall, the better chance of getting DNA |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Central dogma is that postmortem remains can be identified with antemortem dental records; individuals with numerous or complex dental treatments easy to identify. |
|
|
Term
| Methods of Generating DNA Profiles |
|
Definition
1. Restriction fragmentation length polymorphism (RFLP Diming on a nigga)
2. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR/STR) |
|
|
Term
| Restriction Fragmentation Length Polymorphism (RFLP) |
|
Definition
1. Extraction - DNA is taken
2. Fragmentation - the extracted DNA is cut into fragments
3. Electrophoresis - fragments are separated using electrophoresis
4. "Southern Blotting" - DNA is moved from southern transfer to nylon membrane
5. Fragments are subjected to radioactive probes
6. Autoradiographic comparison.
This DNA is super outdated so I'm not super committed to remembering any of it. |
|
|
Term
| Amplification method of DNA analysis - PCR |
|
Definition
1. Dna is extracted from the cells
2. Selected regions of hte sample are amplified.
3. Amplified gene is "typed" through use of dna probes to ID specific ALLELES it contains.
Determines STRS |
|
|
Term
| Short Tandem Repeats Test (STR) |
|
Definition
1. A locus or loci is the actual location of the gene on the region of the chromosome
2. Different STR (genetic markers) occur at different loci. While their positions are fixed, the number of repeated units varies with population.
3. Each person has at most two alleles of each marker, one from each parents
4. An allele is a different form of a gene at a particul locus. The disgnation of alleles at a particular locus is a genotype. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Used to examine dna samples that cannot be analyzed by RFLP or STR
1. Nuclear DNA must be extracted from samples for use in RFLP, PCR, STR
2. Mitochondrial dna analysis uses dna exxtracted from another cellular organelle called a mitochondrion
3. Older biological samples that lack nucleated cell material, such as hair, bones, and teeth. |
|
|
Term
| Preparing your case to challenge DNA |
|
Definition
1. Examine case materials, crime reports, lab reports, bench notes, billing, everything.
2. Examine the chain of custody and the analyst's background
3. Scrutinize lab procedure
4. Analyze laxity of standards used.
5. Re-run raw data - hire an expert ;)
6. Identify artifacts, spurious test results
7. Look for indications of contamination
8. Look for plausible alternative interpretations
9. Review the pertinent scientific literature.
10. Prepare and research! |
|
|
Term
| Packaging of biological material |
|
Definition
1. Dry items should be packed in porous containers such as paper bags, envelopes, and folded paper - air can pass through and prevent degradation
2. Wet items should be allowed to air dry prior to packaging, and layered with several sheets of clean paper to contain the stain and then placed in the appropriate container
3. Very wet items can be transported in plastic containers, but should be air dried as soon as possible |
|
|
Term
| DNA Contamination, how does it happen? |
|
Definition
1. DNA from one source contacts another source
2. During collection - handling evidence witout gloves, failing to change gloves, packing two or items in the same container
3. During testing - equipment not properly cleaned before an item is examined.
4. Degredation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. UV light
2. Heat, humidity, or moisture
3. Bacteria and fungi
4. Acids or chemical cleaning solution |
|
|
Term
| Five possible results of DNA analysis |
|
Definition
1. Inconclusive
2. Exclusion
3. Non-match
4. Match
5. No result |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1. no conclusion can be reached regarding testing done due to many possible reults |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| DNA test result indicating that an individual is excluded as the source of DNA |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An individual is eliminated as the source of a biological sample. This occurs when one or more types from a specific location in the DNA of a knwon individual are not present in the types for that specific location in the sample. |
|
|
Term
| Preparing your case to challenge DNA |
|
Definition
1. Examine case materials, crime reports, lab reports, bench notes, billing, everything.
2. Examine the chain of custody and the analyst's background
3. Scrutinize lab procedure
4. Analyze laxity of standards used.
5. Re-run raw data - hire an expert ;)
6. Identify artifacts, spurious test results
7. Look for indications of contamination
8. Look for plausible alternative interpretations
9. Review the pertinent scientific literature.
10. Prepare and research! |
|
|
Term
| Packaging of biological material |
|
Definition
1. Dry items should be packed in porous containers such as paper bags, envelopes, and folded paper - air can pass through and prevent degradation
2. Wet items should be allowed to air dry prior to packaging, and layered with several sheets of clean paper to contain the stain and then placed in the appropriate container
3. Very wet items can be transported in plastic containers, but should be air dried as soon as possible |
|
|
Term
| DNA Contamination, how does it happen? |
|
Definition
1. DNA from one source contacts another source
2. During collection - handling evidence witout gloves, failing to change gloves, packing two or items in the same container
3. During testing - equipment not properly cleaned before an item is examined.
4. Degredation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. UV light
2. Heat, humidity, or moisture
3. Bacteria and fungi
4. Acids or chemical cleaning solution |
|
|
Term
| Five possible results of DNA analysis |
|
Definition
1. Inconclusive
2. Exclusion
3. Non-match
4. Match
5. No result |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1. no conclusion can be reached regarding testing done due to many possible reults |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| DNA test result indicating that an individual is excluded as the source of DNA |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An individual is eliminated as the source of a biological sample. This occurs when one or more types from a specific location in the DNA of a knwon individual are not present in the types for that specific location in the sample. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. General scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable
2. Person who performed the test did it in the right way |
|
|
Term
| Difference between insanity and competency |
|
Definition
Insanity is a legal question
Competency is a medical determination |
|
|
Term
| The McNaughton rule of mental illness |
|
Definition
| There is a presumption of sanity unless the defense proves that "At the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such defect of reason, from disease of the mind, s not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, he did not know what he was doing was wrong" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. In GA, simply at the time of the act the person could not distinguish right from wrong
2. GA law presumes every person is of sound mind. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| means having a disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or cope with the demands of life. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| means having significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning reulting in adaptive behavior |
|
|
Term
| 5 possible results of insanity defense. |
|
Definition
1. Guilty
2. Not guilty
3. Not guilty by reason of insanity
4. Guilty but mentally ill
5. Guilty but mentally retarded |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| "Insane" means that a peerson "shall not be found guilty of a crime if did not have the capacity to determine right from wrong at the time of the crime" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Presumption of sanity
2. Burden of proving the absence of sanity is on the defendant
3. Defendant can't be put to trial unless he is competent enough to assist in his own defense. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defendant has the burden to prove to a preponderance that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial |
|
|
Term
| McMichen v. State - Malingering |
|
Definition
1. Malingering is basically an oipinion that someone is not telling the truth.
2. Trial court properly admitted testimony from civil competency proceedings about psychologists conclusion of malingering
3. Defendant decided to testify, and opened the door. |
|
|
Term
| Lamar v. State - Competency |
|
Definition
Impermissible as a matter of constitutional law for a mentally incompetent person to be subjected to trial. Regardless of pro-se or not.
Competency to stand trial is the same as competency to waive counsel
special jury trial to determine competency |
|
|
