Scientific and legal principles that can be used to defend against forensic evidence.....how about, "officers' claim highly intoxicated visibly; however, they have given no test....uwittingly- I'd already admitted to having had a couple earlier that previous day (1:05am arrest time)". Would the lack of following through with some bac test or the walking test of normal "intoxicated" person be an argument to prove claim of intoxication was hyped up by officers ; and, should I have been as drunk as they claimed I was....wouldn't I have an argument because they have -no forensic evidence to support their claim?
That was not the issue presented in the video. The video concerned the admissibility of "expert" testimony only. Not cop opinions. Cop opinions are often admissible without any gatekeeping function from the judge. But their opinions can be challenged by good cross examiners.
Sir one question only, I promise, in the state of Texas is there a law: "ATTEMPT to commit fabricate of physical evidence with intent to impair, (ATTEMPTED)"?
What will the expert witness testify about? Once you know that, you can make a Daubert objection and force the prosecutor to prove the relevancy and reliability of the purported expert's testimony. Consider hiring your own expert to prepare you to cross-examine the State's witness, as well. Thanks for your question.
Both cases concerned the admissibility of expert testimony. The Frye case was supplanted by the Daubert case. Daubert set forth a very detailed examination of expert testimony. Frye applied only a small portion of the analysis, which Daubert established. So the question is not what standard is better. The question is whether you can jump though the hoops of Daubert to get the evidence admitted.
I understand wearing the badge is already providing the Judge with reliability.So, if they through their legal principles .....wanted to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was truly intoxicated as they claimed...why wouldn't they go all the way with the bac test to sort of seal the deal? Therefore could I assume "they knew I wasn't drunk" based on the lack of even attempting a too high bac for submission as evidence?
A BAC test is not required to prove intoxication when state law provides alternative legal theories upon which to obtain a conviction without a chemical test.
("the D.A. didn't submit an accusatory pleading, and I got a certificate of detention mailed to me, over my CA pc 22210 charge? I guess because I was preparing an entrapment defense he/she likely was already aware of?...")
An affidavit can be helpful. However, since an affidavit is not prepared within an adversarial context (like live courtroom testimony), it has many limitations.
@@royjackson8519 That is an excellent question.If the victim is subpoenaed to court, they must appear. Unless they can assert some kind of privilege, they must answer questions posed to them. However, the answers to those questions is completely up to them. As long as they tell the "truth," they can answer a question anyway they want to. Does that help?
Daubert is a U.S. Supreme court case requiring certain scientific evidence be proven relevant and reliable before it is admitted as evidence in court. The purpose of the case was to help prevent "junk science" from being used in court. Great question.
Scientific and legal principles that can be used to defend against forensic evidence.....how about, "officers' claim highly intoxicated visibly; however, they have given no test....uwittingly- I'd already admitted to having had a couple earlier that previous day (1:05am arrest time)". Would the lack of following through with some bac test or the walking test of normal "intoxicated" person be an argument to prove claim of intoxication was hyped up by officers ; and, should I have been as drunk as they claimed I was....wouldn't I have an argument because they have -no forensic evidence to support their claim?
That was not the issue presented in the video. The video concerned the admissibility of "expert" testimony only. Not cop opinions. Cop opinions are often admissible without any gatekeeping function from the judge. But their opinions can be challenged by good cross examiners.
I have learned and already used much of what you have taught. Your gifts are helping me tremendously. Thank you.
You are so welcome!
Sir one question only, I promise, in the state of Texas is there a law: "ATTEMPT to commit fabricate of physical evidence with intent to impair, (ATTEMPTED)"?
Yes, there is an aspect of the criminal law dealing with the "attempted" commission of an offense.
How is Daubert relevant in animal cruelty case where expert witness will be called to testify?
What will the expert witness testify about? Once you know that, you can make a Daubert objection and force the prosecutor to prove the relevancy and reliability of the purported expert's testimony. Consider hiring your own expert to prepare you to cross-examine the State's witness, as well. Thanks for your question.
Could these same techniques be used in say a civil case? For example paternity?
Absolutely. In fact, the ruling in this case was in a civil case.
Which standard of evidence is better daubert or frye
Both cases concerned the admissibility of expert testimony. The Frye case was supplanted by the Daubert case. Daubert set forth a very detailed examination of expert testimony. Frye applied only a small portion of the analysis, which Daubert established. So the question is not what standard is better. The question is whether you can jump though the hoops of Daubert to get the evidence admitted.
I understand wearing the badge is already providing the Judge with reliability.So, if they through their legal principles .....wanted to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was truly intoxicated as they claimed...why wouldn't they go all the way with the bac test to sort of seal the deal? Therefore could I assume "they knew I wasn't drunk" based on the lack of even attempting a too high bac for submission as evidence?
A BAC test is not required to prove intoxication when state law provides alternative legal theories upon which to obtain a conviction without a chemical test.
@@GustitisLaw So I am concentrating on alternative legal theories to punch holes in . Thank you for answering me.
This standard could be reductionist.
What do you mean by "reductionist?"
("the D.A. didn't submit an accusatory pleading, and I got a certificate of detention mailed to me, over my CA pc 22210 charge? I guess because I was preparing an entrapment defense he/she likely was already aware of?...")
I am not familiar with these rules of procedure. We do not use them in Texas. Maybe you can ask a defense attorney in your state.
How strong is a affidavit in criminal case when the victim mother write one on your behalf
An affidavit can be helpful. However, since an affidavit is not prepared within an adversarial context (like live courtroom testimony), it has many limitations.
@@GustitisLaw what if it has a notery stamp
@@GustitisLaw do a victim have to testify if they don't want to
@@royjackson8519 That is an excellent question.If the victim is subpoenaed to court, they must appear. Unless they can assert some kind of privilege, they must answer questions posed to them. However, the answers to those questions is completely up to them. As long as they tell the "truth," they can answer a question anyway they want to. Does that help?
@@royjackson8519 I assumed the affidavit had a notary stamp when I read your first question. My answer is still the same. :-)
What is daubert direct evidence?
Daubert is a U.S. Supreme court case requiring certain scientific evidence be proven relevant and reliable before it is admitted as evidence in court. The purpose of the case was to help prevent "junk science" from being used in court. Great question.
@@GustitisLaw thank you po.