Legal case analysis

Legalcase analysis

Legalcase analysis

ForensicEvidence 1:

Case Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923). Citation 130 S. Ct.307

Facts

Mr.Frye, who is the appellant, was charged with second-degree murder. Heappeals his conviction after the lower court disallowed him tointroduce testimonial evidence following a deception test he hadtaken. He brought in an expert witness to testify about his deceptiontest on systolic blood pressure.

Courtsdetermination

Theformer court did not make a mistake by disallowing the results of thedeception test.

Legalrational or reason used by the court to make a decision

Thecourt argued that it is difficult to define a position whenscientific discoveries or principles cross the line between thestages of demonstrations and experimentations. Although the deceptiontest was scientific, it should gain acceptance within its field.

Implicationsof the ruling to criminal investigations

Thedecision is significant in relation to the performance of deceptiontests. Only those that have been recognized by a physiological orpsychological authority should be accepted.

ForensicEvidence 2:

Case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)Citation 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Facts

TheDaubert’s who included parents and their minor children filedcharges against the defendant Merrell Dow. They alleged that one ofthe products made by the pharmaceutical manufacturing companyBendectin resulted in birth defects. They offered testimony fromscientific experts to show causation while the manufacturing companyalso gave evidence through their expert witnesses to refute the link.The trial court provided summary judgment for the defendants leadingto a petition at the Supreme Court by the Daubert’s.

Courtsdetermination

Thecourt decided that the general acceptance test to admit scientificevidence did not control the admission of evidence from expertsfollowing the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Legalrational or reason used by the court to make a decision

Therationale was that the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidencesuperseded all other common law standards used in evidentiary law.They include the general acceptance test to admit expert evidence.

Implicationsof the ruling to criminal investigations

Itis important to analyze the validity of expert testimony whendetermining admissibility.

TestimonialEvidence 1:

Case Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 “cell phones cannot besearched without a warrant as an incident to an arrest. Citation2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430

Facts

Inthe first case, police stopped the defendant for driving withregistration tags that were expired. They also discovered a suspendedlicense. They impounded the car subsequent to which they found twohandguns. The defendant was arrested and charged for possession ofweapons. He was charged with various other offenses after policefound evidence in his phone following its discovery in his pocketpants.

Inthe other scenario, the defendant was arrested by the police aftermaking a sale in drugs. They seized two of his cell phones and usedthe collected information to secure his residence as they got awarrant. On execution, they found cash, guns and drugs. He wascharged with weapon and drug offenses.

Courtsdetermination

Itwas necessary to have a warrant to access digital information in asmart phone seized during an arrest. This is unless another exceptionto the requirement of the warrant exists.

Legalrational or reason used by the court to make a decision

Reasoningwas made because the Fourth Amendment prohibits the searching of thedigital components of a smart phone without the presence of awarrant.

Implicationsof the ruling to criminal investigations

Itprovides significant guidelines to police who may want to act withouta warrant during any incident of arrest. They must have a warrant inorder to search the digital contents from a smart phone that has beenseized from an arrestee. This is because it concerns the privateinformation of an arrestee and does not present any risks to thepolice officer.

TestimonialEvidence 2:

Case Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 “child witness could testifyremotely. Citation 497 U.S. 836 (1990)

Facts

Thedefendant was implicated with various crimes. They included childabuse, assault, battery, perverted sexual practices and first andsecond degrees of sexual offenses. The victim was a six-year-old girlwho attended an education center owned by the respondent. Beforetrial, the state made attempts to invoke a statutory that allowed thetestimony of the victim. Based on his right to confrontation thedefendant objected. The trial court rejected his contention while thestate court of appeal reversed it and demanded a new trial.

Courtsdetermination

Thecourt provided certiorari, vacated and remanded. It was stated thatthe state should show that it was necessary to get the testimony fromthe victim by one-way circuit if it caused trauma for testifying inthe presence of the respondent.

Legalrational or reason used by the court to make a decision

Theyargued that obtaining testimony from the alleged six-year-old victimby closed circuit television would violate the respondent’s SixthAmendment right to confrontation.

Implicationsof the ruling to criminal investigations

Itserves to show that the use of one-way circuit televisions fortestifying among minors can only be used in case it causes trauma andterrifies them while in the presence of the respondent. Similarly, inthe event that they use two-way closed circuit television.

References

Daubertv. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Fryev. United States,293 F. 1013 (1923) 130S. Ct. 307

Rileyv. California,134 S. Ct. 2473 2473,189 L.Ed.2d 430

Marylandv. Craig,497 U.S. 836 (1990)