Image transcription text

Order 363124181 X Content X confrontation clause crawford - S X criminal evidence what is an oral X + X C a Paused Apps M Gmail YouTube Maps Law Homework W Orders Reading list take action against foreigners. P > SPAN 173 WORDS POWERED BY T QUESTION 9 2 points Save A You are the prosecutor in this case. Your ballistics expert comes to you and says that a new test was used to determine if the bullet recovered from Tym's body matched the gu recovered from Superior's dead hand. If you want to introduce this as evidence, what must you desmonstrate to establish admissibility based on the United States Supreme Court's ruling in the Daubert case? For the toolbar, press ALT+F10 (PC) or ALT+FN+F10 (Mac). BIUS Paragraph Arial 10pt F V V A .. P O WORDS POWERED BY T QUESTION 10 1 points Based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Crawford and Clark, which of the following statements would violate the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment? 363124181-Crimi.docx 363124181-Crimi.docx 363123883.edited.docx Criminal Evidence.docx Order ID 363123...docx Show all X Type here to search O w P 2:24 PM 68 F Sunny 2/12/2022

... Show more

On June 21, the first day of summer, people gathered to celebrate the summer solstice.  Ascending to the town of Peak's high point, people watched the sun slowly set over the horizon.    Just as the sun set, an unknown female screamed, "He's got a gun!"  Shots rang out.  People scattered.  Vic Tym felt a searing pain rip through Tym's torso.  Tym managed two more steps and collapsed dead, uttering, "I've been hit." Asia Minor, seven years old, was walking with her mom to Peak's high point when the shooting started.  She looked up to see a mob of people charging at her.  She yelled, "Mom," and grabbed her mom but it was too late.  The fleeing mob knocked her over and trampled her to death. Other than Tym and Minor, twenty more were injured by the shooting or the ensuing hysteria.

Local, state and federal police quickly arrived on the scene and restored order but not before shooting and killing the initial shooter.  They identified the dead shooter as I.M. Superior.  Further investigation revealed Superior was an avowed White Nationalist.  On his Instagram page, Superior posted gun photos and various memes depicting his viewpoints.  His last post occurred twenty-four hours prior to the June 21 shooting.  It warned that the time had come for the Aryan race to take action.  He said that he would lead the way. 

The investigation also uncovered a HateChan profile for Superior.  Investigators found Superior had become "radicalized" through his participation in various HateChan chat rooms.  HateChan was created for and used by people who held a similar view that the Aryan race needed protecting from society at large.  People on the site routinely complained about their circumstances and blamed the situation on immigration and all other ethnic groups. Often these conversations talked of violence.  One post, made by Emmy Grant, proclaimed that "All non-white people are not real Americans and should be sent back where they came from."  Over time, the site gained worldwide members, topping one million individual accounts.  In the last six months, worldwide, HateChan members initiated four different mass shootings that resulted in 53 deaths.  After each shooting, HateChan's public affairs office released a statement condemning the use of violence and that their primary goal is to give people a place to speak their minds.

One user, in particular, seemed to stoke the flames.  Harry N. Leader, HateChan's founder, had quickly identified Superior as someone searching for something.  Using the same board Superior used, Leader posted a collection of self-produced videos discussing how the Aryan race was becoming more and more oppressed.  The videos encouraged those watching to take action in their home towns.  Leader also sent personal messages to Superior encouraging Superior to act on behalf of the Aryan race.  One message said that "White people must stand up for their God-given rights and not allow any foreigners to get in their way."  Never, however, did Leader promote violent action.  Instead, he remained vague about specific action.

Superior was a lonely and tormented soul.  He had just graduated from a university and was looking for work.  He received rejection after rejection.  His parents had cut off their support because they believed he was not trying hard enough to find a job.  One particular rejection stung Superior.  He thought he had a good shot at the position but was rejected at the last minute.  When he went to the office to find an explanation, he found that the company had hired someone from South America.  When he complained to a local bartender, the bartender told Superior about HateChan.  The next morning, while recovering from his drinking, he created a HateChan account. Days later, he received his first message from Leader.

With Superior killed at the scene and the local populace demanding law enforcement action, the local prosecutor decided to prosecute Harry N. Leader on two counts of Murder in the First Degree.  To make a case for murder, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:

  1. Superior killed a person
  2. After deliberation (defined as cool reflection on the matter for any period of time, no matter how brief)
  3. Leader, with the purpose of promoting the commission of Murder in the First Degree, aided or attempted to aid Superior in the planning or the commission of the offense.

Answer & Explanation
Verified Solved by verified expert

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. In Daubert, the Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the Daubert standard.
This is the standard used by a trial judge to assess whether an expert witness's scientific testimony is based on scientifically valid reasoning that which can properly be applied to the facts at issue.
Thus, in the present case, the judge would have to be convinced that expert has qualification and specialization in the filed of ballistics and that the report by the ballistics expert that links the bullet to the gun found on the body of Superior in order to admit the evidence. 

Step-by-step explanation

Under the Daubert standard, the factors that may be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4)the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The Daubert standard is the test currently used in the federal courts and some state courts.
In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), which held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye standard as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, but that the rule incorporated a flexible reliability standard instead;
  • General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997),[1] which held that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and that person's conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether it should admit expert testimony;
  • Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999),[2] which held that the judge's gatekeeping function identified in Daubert applies to all expert testimony, including that which is non-scientific.

Important appellate-level opinions that clarify the standard include Judge Kozinski's opinion in Daubert on remand.
In Daubert, seven members of the Court agreed on the following guidelines for admitting scientific expert testimony:

  • Judge is gatekeeper: Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the task of "gatekeeping", or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from "scientific knowledge", rests on the trial judge.
  • Relevance and reliability: This requires the trial judge to ensure that the expert's testimony is "relevant to the task at hand" and that it rests "on a reliable foundation". Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 584-587. Concerns about expert testimony cannot be simply referred to the jury as a question of weight. Furthermore, the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 104(a), not Rule 104(b); thus, the Judge must find it more likely than not that the expert's methods are reliable and reliably applied to the facts at hand.
  • Scientific knowledge = scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.[3]
  • Illustrative factors: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a set of illustrative factors (i.e., not a "test") in determining whether these criteria are met:
  1. Whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community;
  2. Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
  3. Whether it can be and has been tested;
  4. Whether it has a known error rate; and
  5. Whether the research was conducted independent of the particular litigation or dependent on an intention to provide the proposed testimony.[4]

In 2000, Rule 702 was amended in an attempt to codify and structure elements embodied in the "Daubert trilogy." The amended rule then read as follows:

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

(As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000.)

In 2011, Rule 702 was again amended to make the language more clear. The rule now reads:


A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) The expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.




Thus, in the present case, the judge would have to be convinced that expert has qualification and specialization in the filed of ballistics and that the report by the ballistics expert that links the bullet to the gun found on the body of Superior in order to admit the evidence.