Ten years after Daubert: The status of the states

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 50, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 1154-1163

  Keierleber, Joseph A ^a   Bohan, Thomas L ^a  

^a MTC Forensics   (United States)

Author keywords

Daubert; Forensic science; FRE 702; Frye; Jurisprudence; Scientific evidence admissibility; Scientific evidence reliability; State courts

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; COURT; DECISION MAKING; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 24644510678     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1520/jfs2004241     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
2. Bohan TL, Heels EJ. The case against Daubert: The new scientific evidence "standard" and the standards of the several states. J Forensic Sci 1995;40:1030-44.
3. Lustre AB. Post-Daubert standards for admissibility of scientific and other expert evidence in state courts. Am. Law Reports 5th 2001;90:453-518.
4. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Gr. 1923).
5. Frye, 293 F. at 1014.
6. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 727 F.Supp. 570, 575 (S.D. Cal. 1989).
7. Fed R Evid 702 (1975).
8. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 951 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1991).
9. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594.
10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995).
11. Reed v. United States, 828 A.2d 159, 164, n.3 (D.C. 2003).
12. Bohan and Heels, 1036.
13. Weinstein JB, Berger MA. State adaptations of the federal rules of evidence. In: McLaughlin JM, editor. Weinstein's federal evidence. New York: Matthew Bender, 2004;Chap. T.
14. State v. Ayers, 68 P.3d 768 (Mont. 2003).
15. Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala. 1998)
16. Pullin v. State, 534 S.E.2d 69 (2000).
17. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Carder, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 379.
18. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Carder, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 1052.
19. Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 14 P.3d 1170 (Ran. 2000).
20. Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
21. State v. Council, 515 S.E.2d 508 (S.C. 1999). 1
22. State v. Ramsey, 550 S.E.2d 294, 298-299 (S.C. 2001).
23. State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500, 503 (Me. 1978).
24. Williams, 388 A.2d at 504.
25. Murray PL. Maine evidence. 5th ed. Charlottesville: Lexis Law Publishing, 1999;346 et seq.
26. State v. Irving, 818 A.2d 204, n.3 (Me. 2003).
27. State v. Peters, 192 Wis.2d 674, 690 (Ct. App. 1995), cited in Conley Pub. v. Journal Comm., 665 N.W.2d 879, 892, n.21 (Wis. 2003).
28. Bohan TL. Scientific evidence and forensic science since Daubert: Maine decides to sit out the dance. Maine L Rev 2004;56:136, n.191, n.192.
29. Committee on Evaluation of Sound Spectrograms. On the theory and practice of voice identification. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1979.
30. People v. Kelly, 549 P.2d 1240 (Cal. 1976).
31. People v. Bolden, 58 P.3d 931 (Cal. 2002).
32. Kelly, 549 P.2d at 1251.
33. Reed v. State, 391 A.2d 364 (Md. 1978).
34. Commonwealth v. Topa, 369 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 1977).
35. Williams, 388 A.2d at 504.
36. State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999).
37. Hollien H. Forensic voice identification. San Diego: Academic Press, 2002.
38. Hollien, Forensic voice identification p.127.
39. State v. Vliet, 19 P.3d 42 (Haw. 2001).
40. Mercer v. Pittway Corp., 616 N.W.2d 692 (Iowa 2000).