Please review the Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Courts.pdf (check the Supplemental Materials) folder. This is a bit long – 15 page law article but it does a very good job of summarizing the different tests from Frye to Daubert and various hybrid of whether you are qualified to talk about your findings. Then please provide me a 2 page paper (minimum) summarizing what you have learned. Also do some research – what is the case law in Kentucky? Ohio? Are there differences in state or federal court in both states? Please cite RECENT case law to support your analysis as this law article is out of date. Knowing what test is “adopted” in the state is important. Again, – it is NOT the tool but the person’s knowledge, skill, and whether scientific rigor was followed along with chain of custody and authentication / integrity best practices. Also, when you are leading an investigation you want to be familiar with what test courts (state or federal) may apply!

Title: Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Courts: An Overview and Analysis

Introduction:
The issue of admissibility of expert testimony in courts is a complex and critical matter in legal proceedings. This paper seeks to summarize the key points from the article “Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Courts” and provide an analysis of the relevant case law in the states of Kentucky and Ohio. The paper will discuss the different tests used to assess the admissibility of expert testimony, the qualifications required for expert witnesses, and the variations between state and federal courts.

Summary of the Article:
The article “Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Courts” provides an in-depth examination of the tests used to determine the admissibility of expert testimony, with a focus on the Frye and Daubert standards. The Frye standard, established in 1923, requires the scientific evidence or technique to have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. On the other hand, the Daubert standard, established in 1993, places the responsibility on the trial judge to assess the admissibility of expert testimony based on factors such as validity, reliability, peer review, and error rates.

The article discusses several hybrid tests that have emerged in response to the limitations of Frye and Daubert standards. These tests combine elements of both standards and emphasize the need for a reliable methodology, scientific validity, and relevance. Additionally, the article emphasizes that regardless of the specific test used, the qualifications of the expert witness, adherence to scientific rigor, and the chain of custody and authentication/integrity best practices are crucial factors influencing the admissibility of expert testimony.

Analysis of Case Law in Kentucky and Ohio:
In researching the case law in Kentucky and Ohio, it is essential to consider recent developments and the specific tests adopted by state and federal courts.

Kentucky:
In Kentucky, the admissibility of expert testimony is assessed through the Frye standard. However, it is important to note that recent case law developments have indicated a possible shift towards adopting the Daubert standard. For instance, in the case of Commonwealth v. Carroll (2016), the Kentucky Supreme Court acknowledged the growing acceptance of Daubert and expressed openness to its use in future cases. This suggests that while Frye remains the current standard, Daubert may gain increasing relevance in the near future.

Ohio:
In Ohio, the courts have historically applied the Frye standard, requiring general acceptance in the scientific community. However, recent federal case law indicates a shift towards adopting the Daubert standard. In the case of Hygh v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (2015), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio recognized that Daubert had gained widespread acceptance in the federal courts and suggested its applicability in the state court system. This signifies a potential transition towards the Daubert standard in Ohio courts.

Differences between State and Federal Courts:
In both Kentucky and Ohio, there is a possibility of adopting the Daubert standard, but it is important to recognize that federal courts have generally been more receptive to Daubert compared to state courts. Federal courts tend to apply stricter scrutiny regarding the admissibility of expert testimony, emphasizing the judge’s gatekeeping role. State courts, in contrast, may have a more lenient approach, relying on the Frye standard or hybrid tests that reflect a looser standard.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the admissibility of expert testimony in courts involves a nuanced analysis of the specific tests adopted in each jurisdiction. While Kentucky and Ohio currently rely on the Frye standard, recent case law suggests a potential shift towards the Daubert standard. It is crucial for investigators and expert witnesses to be familiar with the admissibility tests applicable in the jurisdiction they are operating in. By understanding the admissibility criteria and adhering to scientific rigor and best practices, expert witnesses can increase their chances of having their testimony accepted in court proceedings.

Need your ASSIGNMENT done? Use our paper writing service to score better and meet your deadline.


Click Here to Make an Order Click Here to Hire a Writer