Daubert Vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Case

859 Words4 Pages
Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals(1993); This case was not about polygraph, but it did something very important that affected polygraph. It loosened the rules of evidence from the 'general acceptance' Frye ruling in 1923 and stated that 'general acceptance' was NOT a necessary pre-condition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. Instead, the Daubert decision placed the decision making power in the trial judge's hands to "ensure that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." Daubert also laid out factors, to consider when determining the reliability of expert testimony. Those factors are; “whether the theories and techniques employed by the scientific expert have been tested,…show more content…
Sheffer(1998); A complex and confusing case that did revolve around polygraph, but was equally a matter of rules of evidence. The only clear outcome of the case was that refusal to consider polygraph evidence in a court-martial was deemed as not a violation of the defendant's rights and that under Military Rule of Evidence 707, polygraph remains inadmissible in court-martial proceedings, period. Edward Sheffer was an airman in the Air force, In March 1992, he volunteered to work as an informant on drug investigations. A legal constraint for working with controlled substances is taking a polygraph and drug tests while working undercover. He agreed to both. Before the urine tests results came back, an experienced examiner concluded from the polygraph test that Sheffer showed no sign of deception when denied using drugs since joining the Air Force. Later, urinalysis revealed the presence of methamphetamine. Sheffer was then tried by general court-martial on charges of using methamphetamine. He testified in trial denying that he knowingly used drugs while working undercover. To help with his testimony, sheffer sought to acquire the polygraph evidence to support his motion of not knowingly using drugs. The military judge denied the motion, because of the Military Rule of Evidence 707, which is: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the results of a polygraph examination, the opinion of a polygraph examiner, or any reference to an offer to take, failure to
Open Document