Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Daubert and Frye Hearings for Footwear Impression Evidence

Expand Messages
  • Ken C
    I will site the source as http://members.aol.com.varfee/mastssite/daubert_wins.html but this link does not take you directly to the same page that I printed it
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I will site the source as
      http://members.aol.com.varfee/mastssite/daubert_wins.html
      but this link does not take you directly to the same page that I printed it out from.
      What I printed out reads as;

      Memorandum of Decision and Order

      Before the court is Defendant, Anthony Allen's Motion in Limine filed on March 28, 2002 seeking to exclude certain expert opinions relating to footwear impression evidence, , ,
      After a thorough review of the evidentiary record and the briefs, THE COURT HERIN CONFIRMS THE GENERAL ADMISSIBILITY OF FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE UNDER DAUBERT, and, to that extent Defendant's Motion in Limine is DENIED.

      CONCLUSION
      Today this court upholds, as a general principle, the relevance and reliability of the "science" of footwear impression evidence on the basis that the general methodology and traditional methods of obtaining footwear impression evidence is never admissible as technical or specialized knowledge under Daubert and its progeny, the Motion in Limine is DENIED.
      (Quote - End Quote)

      and in US v. Michael Mahone CR-03-93-B-W

      which questions the expert examiner states,

      The Court accepts Ms. Homer as an expert in the field of forensic science, specifically the subfield of footwear impression evidence collection and analysis, finds the methodology for analyzing footwear impression evidence is reliable, and concludes that her proffered expert footwear impression testimony is admissible under the standards set forth in both rule 702 and Daubert.

      This decision was upheld by the 1st District Court of Appeals which states "the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the footwear impression expert testimony."
      _________________________________________________________________



      --- In forensic-science@yahoogroups.com, John Buckleton <John.Buckleton@...> wrote:
      >
      > Ken, can we obtain this ruling somehow? John Buckleton
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com [forensic-science@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken C [mrcsi2000@...]
      > Sent: Friday, 31 December 2010 9:50 p.m.
      > To: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [forensic-science] Re: Daubert and Frye Hearings for Footwear Impression Evidence
      >
      >
      >
      > Daubert rulings in Favor of Footwear Impression Evidence.
      > United States of America v. Anthony Dewayne Allen
      > Locale: US District Court - Northern District of Indiana
      > Criminal Cause No.: 1:01-CR-80
      > Presiding Judge: Honorable William C. Lee, Chief Judge - US District Court.
      >
      > You may or may not be familiar with William Bodziak - Retired FBI
      >
      > http://www.bodziak.com/footwearbookinformation.html
      >
      > Hope this helps.
      >
      > --- In forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.com>, Nadav Levin <simanim@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Dear Colleagues,
      > > We are looking for references and information regarding Daubert and Frye
      > > Hearings on Footwear Impression Evidence.
      > > Any input will be appreciated.
      > > Thanks, and a Happy New Year
      > > Nadav Levin
      > > Toolmarks and Materials Lab
      > > Div. of Identification and Forensic Science (DIFS)
      > > Israeli Police HQ
      > > Jerusalem 91906
      > > Israel
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > P Think before you print
      > This e-mail transmission and any attachments that accompany it may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it was intended to be addressed.
      > If you have received this e-mail by mistake, or you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use or retention of this communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately reply to the author via e-mail that you received this message by mistake and also permanently delete the original and all copies of this e-mail and any attachments from your computer. Thank you.
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.