Daubert Vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Case

Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Bath, N.Y. (WENY) -- In a few days Thomas Clayton will be sentenced for his role in orchestrating his wife 's death. However on Thursday, the attorney for the convicted murderer made his first motion for a new trial.

The hillside strangler killings involved the suspects of Kenneth bianchi and Angelo Bono. It can be questioned if Kenneth actually committed the murders, it may have been Angelo committing the killing and Kenneth just aiding him in the process. During trail Kenneth claimed to have dissociative identity disorder, an illness where there are multiple personalities inside your brain and your primary personality has no idea that they are existent. Kenneth was found to not have this illness after examination but was the examination correct with its findings. Kenneth claimed to have been lying about having the illness after

During the trial in the book to kill a mockingbird by Harper Lee. The Lawyer Atticus Finch uses rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos tap into the jury's sense of ethics, logic and emotion to convey Tom Robinson, a black man, is innocence in a rape case.

Dothard v. Rawlinson the facts in the case are listed below. Rawlinson was the plaintiff; she was a 22-year-old with some college training in correctional psychology and applied for a job as a prison counselor trainee in the state of Alabama. The current statute of Alabama required that the state correctional employees had to maintain a minimum weight of 120 pounds and to be the lowest height of 5' 2". The position of a prison counselor primary duty was to keep the security and to be able to have control over the inmates through a constant observation and supervision.

Ron Stone, a police drug informant disappeared on January 22nd 1977 only for his body to be found two months later on the banks of River Stanislaus, miles from Sonora. The victim had been working as a drug informant for narcotic detectives. His main duty was to set up Christopher Towler by introducing him to two undercover agents who would arrest him as he tried to sell them cocaine. The set up was successful and Towler was arrested and convicted on charges of selling cocaine. In the course of his trial and before his conviction, Towler had expressed his hatred for snitches and the fact that he believed that they should be killed. When he was released on bail, Towler confided to different people that he believed that Stone had betrayed him

There comes a time in the criminal justice system where a law that was written to protect us will be challenged through a court case. That case will eventually make history and will become a reference in future cases with similar dilemmas. In 1983, one particular case met the criteria (Arizona vs. Youngblood). In this case, Larry Youngblood was convicted by a jury in Arizona of child molestation, sexual assault, and kidnapping of a ten-year-old boy. Both a criminologist for the State and an expert witness for the defendant testified as to what they believed the results were from the tests that were performed on the samples shortly after they were collected, they also commented on later tests performed on the samples from the boy’s clothing

According to Daubert, the “smell of death” evidence would have had to meet the criteria in order for it to be used as reliable evidence. First, the evidence needs to be tested to see if the expert can receive the same result each time, it needs to be done.

The Daubert Trilogy refers to the three key cases that established precedence for how judges determine the admissibility of expert testimony. Joiner, which held that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and his conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether it should admit expert testimony.

Under the modified Daubert standard, relevant scientific evidence is only admissible if it is centered upon testable hypotheses, conforms with the standard rate of potential errors, has been peer reviewed, and if the method is generally accepted in the scientific community (Hoog, 2008). However, there are three problems with the application of the Daubert standard. Firstly, David E. Bernstein and Jeffrey D. Jackson (2004) proved that there was no uniformity in the application of the standard in the sense that it’s only abided with in a portion of the states, and not necessarily with full adherence. Secondly, since the judge is not a scientist, it is difficult for him/her to, without doubt, determine the full honesty of the experts’ testimonies. An example from the Willingham case would be the two medical experts asserting that he was a sociopath although one was an irrelevant family counselor and the other, known as “Dr. Death” and later expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for ethical violations, had not even spoken to Todd Willingham. Last but not least, science is characterized by its incessant evolution in a way that a single new anomaly can easily falsify a strong scientific theory. In simple English, even experts know that there is no ultimate certainty to

Looking at the totality of the circumstance, which is the test used when the court focuses on all of the circumstances surrounding a situation rather than any one factor, I do believe that the evidence obtained during the traffic stop and arrest in question would remain valid.

How well does the Australian Legal System deal with the contemporary issue (drug use and the law)

The Judge plays an important role in ruling whether scientific evidence is necessary and appropriate and would decide whether the psychologist can testify about the results from DCAT . The Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) provides guidance on the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) require that the Judge ensure that “an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” FRE 702 (2012) states:

Polygraph tests should not be held admissible in the court system because they are used falsely and they do not always catch the lies that have been told.What is a polygraph? Is it used properly in the court system? “There is no test that can detect lies.”(Sources6)Some people think that the tests are read and study correctly and some people think it is read wrong. Scientist have studied and shows that it is not better than no other tests that is out there to catch lies and guilty people. (Sources 1) A person can constantly tell them self they didn 't do it and pass the polygraph test by just saying that to them self over and over to make their self believe . (Sources 3)When the test is giving its lot of things that are falsely done wrong starting with the examination person,what they are looking at when

In this case, Dookhan cases appear to account for a mind-boggling 25 percent of all of the drug litigation that led to convicting in the seven constituency that uses the Hinton State Lab during Dookhan’s incumbency. Yet, Dookhan was let go on parole only because this was the first time prosecutors ad the list of all the defendants affected by the case. Annie Dookhan was convicted on drug charges from fabricating thousands of test results. For someone to face such a light sentence for ruining countless lives with falsification of many different evidences is seen as a disgrace. Falsification of evidence leads straight to convictions but there are many other ways one can become convicted in our criminal justice system(Lithwick,2016).