Admissibility and Expert Testimony
Federal Rules of Evidence 701
opinion testimony by lay witnesses
It sets strict limits to ensure that non-expert opinions are based on personal experience rather than specialized or scientific knowledge.
The opinion must be grounded in what the witness personally saw, heard, or otherwise sensed. It cannot be based on hearsay or speculation.
The testimony must assist the judge or jury in clearly understanding the witness's testimony or in determining a key fact in the case.
The opinion must not rely on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that falls under the scope of Rule 702 (the rule for expert witnesses).
Frye v United States
Evidence that is not accepted by the scientific community is also NOT accepted in a federal criminal trial
Ake v Oklahoma
Indigent defendants are guaranteed psychiatric assistance under the Sixth Amendment for the purpose of an insanity defense, or for mitigating circumstances in a capital case
Panetti v Quarterman
Competency for execution must include a rational understanding of the State’s justification for executing the defendant/inmate
Atkins v Virginia
The execution of “mentally retarded” persons is considered cruel and unusual punishment
Federal Rules of Evidence 702
Testimony by Experts
Intended to guide a flexible inquiry with an overarching focus on scientific validity, evidentiary relevance, and reliability. Thus, new ideas are not barred.
Experts must have specialized knowledge that can assist the factfinder.
It is usually most helpful when it challenges the factfinder's perceptions or assumptions about human behavior and motivation.
General Electric Company v Joiner
An appellate court SHOULD use the "abuse of discretion” standard in reviewing a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony
SCOTUS heard the case and agreed that the “abuse of discretion” standard was appropriate for appellate review
Dusky v United States
Having a basic knowledge of one’s charges is NOT sufficient for competency to stand trial
SCOTUS delineated the test for competency should be “whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding – and whether he had a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”
Pate v Robinson
Defendants are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on the issue of competence to stand trial
Crane v Kentucky
The Constitution permits evidence on the conditions under which a confession is obtained
SCOTUS reversed and remanded, noting the KY decision was in conflict with precedent set my SCOTUS in previous cases – evidence relevant to context of confession is imperative to decisions regarding reliability and credibility of the statements made
Federal Rules of Evidence 703
Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts
The facts/data reasonably relied upon by experts in the field need not be admissible in evidence for the opinion or inference to be admitted.
Facts/data are otherwise inadmissible, unless the value in assisting the jury outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Jenkins v United States
Psychologists DO have specialized knowledge relevant to the diagnosis of insanity and should be permitted to testify on such matters
Ford v Wainwright
You CANNOT execute the insane, it is a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments
SCOTUS heard the case – They found (1) Cruel and unusual punishment clause of the 8th amendment and due process clause for 14th amendment did prohibit the imposition of the death penalty on the insane, and that the district court erred when it declined to hear Ford’s petition
English common law found executing the insane “savage and inhumane,” and no state permitted such executions. Florida’s competency procedures were found to be inadequate, since they failed to hold a hearing regarding Ford’s evaluations (and the decision was just left up to the Governor…which is not okay)
Riggins v Nevada
A person standing trial CANNOT be forced to take antipsychotic medication (it must first be determined to be medically appropriate and the least intrusive option)
Hall v Florida
It IS a violation of the Constitution to rely upon a strict IQ score in determining intellectual disability for the purposes of death penalty proceedings
Federal Rules of Evidence 704
Opinion on the Ultimate Issue
Ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.
Although FRE 704a allows experts to provide opinions on ultimate issues
FRE 702 prohibits admission of any opinion not based on specialized knowledge, which presumably prohibits ultimate issue opinions.
Kumho Tire Company v Carmichael
Daubert criteria DOES apply to nonscientific testimony (in this case, engineers)
The court of appeals overturned, stating that Daubert should not have applied to nonscientific evidence; SCOTUS overturned the appellate decision and said Daubert applies to all expert testimony (“scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge.”)
Indiana v Edwards
The State CAN deny the right of self-representation to those who are deemed competent to stand trial
The US Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not forbid States from insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.*
Wilson v United States
Permanent retrograde amnesia DOES NOT automatically render a defendant incompetent to stand trial
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found loss of memory does not preclude someone from proceeding to trial, BUT the trial court must decide (within the context of the strength of the state’s case) if:
1. There is sufficient extrinsic information about what happened (so the defendant can make educated decisions with that information)
2. The defendant can follow the proceedings against him
3. The defendant can discuss the proceedings rationally with his attorney, and
4. The defendant can testify on his own behalf
In re Gault
Juvenile defendants face a loss of liberty when they are denied the same due process rights as adults charged with a crime
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
The standard set by Frye v. U.S. is NOT the appropriate standard for admitting scientific evidence into federal court
Deatherage v. Examining Board of Psychology
Absolute witness immunity does NOT extend to professional disciplinary proceedings
Jackson v Indiana
A defendant CANNOT be committed indefinitely if they are found incompetent to proceed and unrestorable
M’Naghten Case
Established framework for the legal test of insanity (M’Naghten Rules). Specifically, (1) Insanity is for the jury to decide, and (2) Is determined by an appreciation of right versus wrong at the time of the alleged offense.
In re Winship
Provided the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof to juvenile cases to ensure compliance with Fourteenth Amendment Due Process