September 28, 2011
Today, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an important decision reaffirming its approach to expert scientific evidence in
Turner v. State, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2011), Cause No. 49S00-0912-CR-565, in which it held that an expert's opinion was admissible despite the fact that it may not have the test for admissibility of expert testimony set forth in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
less..
Turner was a criminal case in which the defendant was charged with murder, felony murder, criminal confinement, robbery, and burglary and found guilty of all charges. At trial, the State presented the testimony of a firearms and tool mark examiner, who testified that a mark on an unfired cartridge found where the defendant slept the night after the crime matched the marks on four discharged cartridges found the scene of the crime and that these marks were all caused by the same weapon. Turner challenged this testimony, because it did not meet the standards for scientific reliability set forth in
Daubert. The trial court admitted this testimony and the defendant appealed.
On appeal, the Court restated that Indiana's courts are not bound by
Daubert and that
Indiana Evid. R. 702 does not "interpose an unnecessarily burdensome procedure or methodology [on] trial courts." Thus, whether the expert's testimony satisfied
Daubert was not dispositive.
[I]t is not dispositive for our purposes whether Putzek's theory or technique can be and has been tested, whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether there is a known or potential error rate, and whether the theory has been generally accepted within the relevant field of study. ... The uncertainty of Putzek's opinion, as well as the lack of formal testing and his inability to
pinpoint other research, all inform the fact finder's judgment on weighing this evidence, but does not render the evidence inadmissible.
... Here, the conceptual basis for linking tool marks without a "known tool" is the same as that for linking tool marks with a known tool, and the trial court could reasonably have concluded that the concepts of the field could be applied to reach the conclusion given. The linkage demonstrated is simply weaker where no weapon is available for comparison purposes. This goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence.
This opinion strongly favors the admissibility of expert testimony, allowing the fact-finder, rather than the trial court, to sort things out. All of the defendant's challenges to the reliability of the expert's testimony went to the weight, not the admissibility, of that testimony. This is a case that every attorney who is relying on the testimony of an expert should be prepared to cite in defense of the admissibility of that expert's opinion.
Lessons:
- Scientific evidence should not be excluded in Indiana's state courts simply because it does not meet the standards for admissibility described in Daubert.
- The Indiana Supreme Court strongly favors allowing a jury to sort through the weight to be given to expert testimony.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/278
