Page 215 - Veterinary Toxicology, Basic and Clinical Principles, 3rd Edition

182 SECTION | I General

VetBooks.ir as the “general acceptance” standard. A brief history of devoted to toxicology, 34 36 medical testimony, 35 37 admissibil-
and other
exposure science,
Frye may illustrate its use in a legal setting.
ity of expert testimony,
In 1923, a defendant was convicted of second degree
sections that may be of interest to toxicologists, and other
murder. Frye The defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling scientists. Much of the material below is summarized
31
because the court did not allow the defendant to offer from these sources.
expert testimony. The expert testimony would have used Four cases with rulings impacting expert testimony
a precursor to the “lie detector test” known as the “sys- have reached the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. The
tolic blood pressure deception test” (“SBPD test”). The cases are Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
defendant’s expert claimed that the SBPD test could 509 U.S. 579 (1993), General Electric Co v Joiner, 522
prove whether or not a person being examined by the U.S. 136 (1997), Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael, 119 S.
SBPD was attempting to deceive the examiner or conceal Ct. 1167 (1999), and now Weisgram v Marley Co, 528
his guilt with regard to the crime. The judge did not allow U.S. 440 (2000). Both Daubert and General Electric were
this testimony, and the defendant was convicted. The toxic tort cases. General Electric, Kumho, and Weisgram
ruling was appealed. The court of appeals held that when are briefly mentioned.
“admitting expert testimony deduced from a well- The holdings in General Electric and Kumho are of
recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing legal review and admission of testimony from nonscien-
from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently tists as experts, so they are summarized briefly. The hold-
established to have gained general acceptance in the par- ing in General Electric is primarily of legal interest. In
ticular field in which it belongs.” Frye at 1013. This holding General Electric, the Supreme Court held that the correct
is commonly abbreviated as the “general acceptance” test. standard for an appellate court to apply in reviewing a
The trial court decision was upheld, because the defen- district court’s evidentiary ruling is an “abuse of discre-
dant had insufficient proof that the SBPD test had gained tion” standard. This holding most commonly has the
“general acceptance.” Consequently, the defendant’s effect of strengthening the decision made by the district
expert was not allowed to testify, so this expert testimony court whether it is to admit, or to not admit, the expert
was not entered into evidence, and this evidence was then testimony. Of potential interest to toxicologists and, other
not available to support an argument to overturn the scientists, is the urging by Justice Breyer in General
defendant’s conviction. Electric that judges avail themselves of court appointed
General Electric at
Frye was a federal criminal case, but the holding was experts. ... Kumho Tire is not directly on
later adopted in federal civil cases. Over time, Frye was point for toxicologists.
adopted by most state courts for both civil and criminal The Supreme Court held in Kumho Tire, that the
proceedings. phrases “technical” and “other specialized” knowledge in
However, Frye is no longer the standard in federal the Federal Rule of Evidence 702, allows testimony from
cases. The Frye test was superseded in federal courts by those with “skill” or “experience” based expertise and not
the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert at just “science” based expertise. The Supreme Court held
589
The Frye test has also been replaced by the Daubert that an expert in tire failure analysis could testify as an
test in many state court systems. See Table 11.1. The expert even though his expertise was “skill” or “experi-
remainder of this section is devoted to Daubert since it ence” based, rather than “science” based. Kumho at 1171 . The
has been adopted by the federal courts and many state holdings in Daubert may be of more direct interest to tox-
court systems to determine whether expert testimony is, icologists, and other scientists.
or is not, admitted into evidence today. In Weisgram the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff
is entitled to only one chance to select an expert who can
withstand a Daubert motion. Justice Ginsberg stated: 38
Daubert
Since Daubert, moreover, parties relying on expert testi-
Daubert is one of three U.S. Supreme Court cases addres-
mony have had notice of the exacting standards of reliabil-
sing the issue of admissibility of expert testimony;
ity such evidence must meet.. .. It is implausible to suggest,
recently, a fourth case addresses the number of chances to
select an expert. In addition, the federal court system has 33. See pages 1 10.
published a Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 32 to
34. See pages 633 686.
assist judges in applying these rulings. This Reference 35. See pages 687 746.
Manual contains introductory material 33 and sections 36. See pages 11 36.
37. See pages 503 548.
31. The judge is referred to as “the court” in legal writing. 38. 528 U.S. at 455; presented in “The Admissibility of Expert
32. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition. (2011) The Testimony--Margaret A. Berger.” National Research Council. 2011.
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition.