Deck 13: Results of Examinations and Tests

Question 1

May testimony concerning the results of experiments and tests made out of court be admitted in a criminal trial? What are the requirements? What are the considerations in determining the admissibility of evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence?

Answer 1

In a criminal trial, testimony concerning the results of experiments and tests made out of court may be admitted under certain circumstances. The requirements for admitting such testimony include ensuring that the experiments and tests were conducted using reliable methods and that the results are relevant to the issues in the case. Additionally, the person offering the testimony must be qualified as an expert in the field of the experiments or tests.

When determining the admissibility of evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, several considerations come into play. These considerations include whether the evidence is relevant to the case, whether it is reliable, and whether its probative value outweighs any potential prejudicial effect. The judge will also consider whether the evidence falls under any specific exceptions or exclusions outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence.

In addition, the judge may consider the potential for confusion or waste of time if the evidence is admitted, as well as the potential for unfair prejudice to the defendant. Ultimately, the judge will weigh these considerations and make a determination as to whether the testimony concerning the results of experiments and tests made out of court should be admitted in the criminal trial.

Question 2

What was the basic holding in the Daubert case? How did Daubert change prior practice in federal courts? Does the Daubert standard make scientific evidence easier to get admitted when compared to the Frye standard?

Answer 2

The basic holding in the Daubert case was that the Federal Rules of Evidence required trial judges to act as gatekeepers for scientific evidence, ensuring that it was both relevant and reliable before allowing it to be presented to the jury. This meant that judges were given the authority to assess the scientific validity of expert testimony and determine whether it should be admitted in court.

Prior to the Daubert case, federal courts typically followed the Frye standard, which focused on whether the scientific evidence had gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. However, the Daubert case changed this practice by introducing a more flexible and rigorous standard for admitting scientific evidence. The Daubert standard emphasized the importance of the scientific method and required judges to consider factors such as peer review, error rates, and general acceptance in the scientific community when evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony.

In comparison to the Frye standard, the Daubert standard does make it easier for scientific evidence to be admitted in federal courts. This is because the Daubert standard allows for a more in-depth analysis of the scientific validity of evidence, rather than relying solely on general acceptance in the scientific community. As a result, the Daubert standard has led to a more nuanced and individualized approach to evaluating scientific evidence, ultimately making it easier for certain types of evidence to be admitted in court.

Question 3

What constitutional provisions are usually referred to when challenging examinations of the body for such things as traces of blood, bruises, and marks?

Answer 3

When challenging examinations of the body for traces of blood, bruises, and marks, the constitutional provisions that are often referred to in the United States include the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

1. **Fourth Amendment**: The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It requires that any search or seizure be reasonable, and in many cases, it must be supported by a warrant issued upon probable cause. When the government seeks to conduct a bodily examination or collect biological samples, such as blood, the individual may argue that this constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. If the examination is deemed to be unreasonable or conducted without proper legal authority, such as a warrant, it may be challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds.

2. **Fifth Amendment**: The Fifth Amendment includes several protections, but relevant to bodily examinations is the right against self-incrimination. This provision states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This means that individuals cannot be forced to provide evidence that would incriminate them. In some cases, individuals may argue that being compelled to submit to a bodily examination or to provide samples of their blood or DNA would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In addition to these federal constitutional provisions, state constitutions may offer similar or even greater protections against unreasonable searches and compelled self-incrimination. When challenging such examinations, defense attorneys will often cite both federal and state constitutional protections, as well as statutory law and case law that interpret these provisions.

It is important to note that the law in this area is complex and fact-specific. The courts have recognized certain exceptions to these protections, and the legality of a bodily examination can depend on the circumstances, such as the existence of exigent circumstances or the individual's consent to the examination. Legal challenges often require a careful analysis of the facts of the case, the methods used to obtain the evidence, and the applicable legal standards.

Question 4

In addition to blood, what other substances are used to determine blood-alcohol content? What other tests are performed, and what conditions must be met before using this evidence in court?

Question 5

What is the purpose of implied consent statutes? Have these been held unconstitutional? May evidence of refusal to take a blood-alcohol test be introduced at trial? Explain.

Question 6

State in nontechnical terms how the polygraph operates. What three approaches have been taken by various courts to determine the admissibility of polygraph evidence? Is polygraph evidence per se inadmissible?

Question 7

How does the "truth serum" procedure differ from the polygraph test? Is evidence obtained while a person is under the influence of "truth serum" admissible in a criminal case? Explain.

Question 8

Is testimony regarding fingerprint comparisons for identification purposes authorized in a criminal case? How can one qualify as a fingerprint expert? Are the police required to take fingerprints at the scene of a crime? Must the officer give the Miranda warnings before taking fingerprints?

Question 9

How does one qualify as a witness to testify about the results of ballistics experiments? Give examples of some of the subjects of ballistics expert testimony.

Question 10

How is RADAR used to measure speed? What are the general requirements upon which trial courts insist in order to admit RADAR results in court?

Question 11

What is the principle behind laser speed detection? How has the admissibility of this evidence been facilitated by some state legislatures?

Question 12

Has any court approved the use of neutron activation analysis as a means of detecting the presence of certain chemical elements? Are there any dangers in using this method? Explain.

Question 13

Describe the deoxyribonucleic acid

Question 14

What are the reasons and rationales that many courts offer for declining to allow evidence of polygraph examinations as proof in criminal trials?

Question 15

In People v. Wilkinson, the defendant wanted to be permitted to present evidence that the polygraph should be admissible in California criminal trials. She wanted to be able to prove that the polygraph was a reliable concept. Why did the court refuse to permit her to offer proof in support of the admissibility of polygraph examinations?

Question 16

In the City of Cleveland Heights v. Katz, a police officer observed a vehicle traveling at an elevated level of speed and clocked the vehicle with a radar unit. A municipal court convicted Katz of speeding and he appealed, contending that the radar gun and the instruments used to calibrate the radar gun had not been shown to have been properly tested. What steps must a police officer take to accurately clock a potential speeder with scientific instruments? What steps can a police department be forced to follow in order to prove that an instrument worked properly? Was the radar device properly maintained and serviced? Would you have overturned the conviction? Why or why not?

Question 17

In the case of Commonwealth v. Gaynor, a jury convicted the defendant of rape and murder of four women over a period of time. Investigators saved human material from the private areas of the women that experts much later tested for DNA markers related to identity. His attack on the DNA evidence consisted of arguing that the company that conducted the tests could not distinguish DNA from separate sources, and he challenged the way the tests were conducted. Additionally, he questioned the company's math and suggested their use of a genetic database as being inadequate. How did the court rule on the various challenges? The DNA case challenges seem to go more to the mechanics of the testing than to questioning the scientific validity of DNA.

Question 18

Evidence that is the result of examinations and tests conducted in or out of court:

A) is not reliable and therefore not admissible.
B) is of little value unless it is accompanied by oral testimony.
C) is not very convincing evidence.
D) makes up the greater part of evidence presented in criminal cases.

Question 19

The courts have established rules concerning the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. In interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence, the United States Supreme Court has:

A) adopted the Frye test, which states that there must be proof that the scientific tests have been "generally accepted" as reliable in the relevant scientific community.
B) sanctioned the abandonment of standards for the admission of expert opinion for the admission of scientific evidence.
C) established a list of factors to guide lower courts in assessing the reliability of scientific evidence and made these tests absolute.
D) held that the admissibility of expert testimony concerning novel scientific evidence no longer is limited solely to knowledge or evidence "generally accepted" as reliable in the relevant scientific community and emphasized that the inquiry in determining the reliability of scientific evidence is a flexible one, focusing on the principles and methodology proffered as evidence rather than the conclusions they generate.

Question 20

In considering the admissibility of testimony relating to out-of-court tests made from saliva samples that the defendant was required to give to the investigators, courts have generally held that:

A) this evidence is inadmissible because it violates self-incrimination provisions.
B) such evidence is inadmissible because it violates the best evidence test.
C) the privilege against self-incrimination offers no protection against the use of such evidence.
D) evidence is not admissible if the test was made out of court, but is admissible if the test is made in court and warnings have been given.

Question 21

In considering the use of results of blood, urine, and breath tests to determine intoxication, and comments by the prosecutor concerning a defendant's refusal to take the test, the United States Supreme Court has determined that:

A) requiring the taking of such tests does not violate self-incrimination rights, but comments by the prosecutor on the failure to take the test violate self-incrimination rights.
B) the extraction of blood samples for such tests does not violate the self-incrimination rights of the person but does violate the right to counsel protection.
C) a state statute allowing the introduction of evidence of refusal to take the test violates self-incrimination provisions.
D) neither the extraction of blood samples for blood-alcohol tests nor comments by the prosecutor on refusal to take the test violates self-incrimination protections.

Question 22

Several courts have considered the use of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (HGN) to estimate the level of alcohol in the blood. The decisions indicate that:

A) these tests are of no value in determining blood-alcohol content.
B) because the tests are of a scientific nature, officers are not qualified to testify concerning the use of such tests.
C) some courts have held that the HGN tests satisfy the tests for reliability and may be admitted in evidence as a factor in establishing probable cause to arrest for driving under the influence.
D) ingestion of alcohol has no bearing on eye movement.

Question 23

Implied consent statutes providing for revocation of the driver's license if a person refuses to take an alcohol test:

A) have been upheld as constitutional in most states.
B) are usually considered invalid as violating the defendant's right to counsel.
C) apply only if the driver stopped is licensed in the state in which the test is made.
D) allow an officer to administer a blood test at any time and in any place.

Question 24

Blood tests often serve the useful purpose of identification in criminal cases. In considering the admissibility of such tests, it is generally agreed that:

A) the trial court has wide latitude in ruling on the admissibility of the results of a blood grouping test.
B) it is error for a judge to allow evidence that the defendant was a member of a class consisting of a percentage of the male population.
C) it is improper to use blood comparison evidence to show that the blood types of the defendant and the victim were different.
D) while whole blood may be used for comparison purposes, the results of typing of aged, dried blood stains is inadmissible.

Question 25

In recent years, the courts have reexamined the issue of admissibility of polygraph expert testimony and examination evidence. In regard to the use of the results of polygraph examinations:

A) although federal district courts are not in agreement concerning admissibility, it is error to state that such evidence is inadmissible in any federal court under any conditions.
B) there has been little evidence that the science of polygraphy has progressed in the last decade.
C) while polygraph results are inadmissible, evidence of the refusal of the defendant to take a lie detector test is admissible.
D) while federal courts do not agree concerning the use of results of polygraph examinations, state courts have been consistent in holding that such tests are not reliable under any circumstances.

Question 26

In jurisdictions in which the results of polygraph examinations are inadmissible in court,

A) police still use the polygraph during investigations and as a tool to encourage admissions and confessions.
B) police are prohibited from using the polygraph during investigations in attempts to gather evidence regarding admissions and confessions.
C) police are prohibited from using the polygraph because of its inherent unreliability for any purpose.
D) police may use a polygraph to gather evidence so long as they clearly state to the subject that the evidence will never be used court against the individual.

Question 27

Testimony relating to fingerprint comparisons:

A) is not admissible unless the defendant is given the Miranda warnings.
B) is admissible for purposes of comparing prints with records on file but not for purposes of comparison with fingerprints left at the scene of a crime.
C) is not admissible because the judge cannot take judicial notice of the fact that fingerprint identification is one of the surest methods of identification.
D) is admissible in establishing the identification of the accused if the person giving the testimony qualifies as a fingerprint expert.

Question 28

Testimony relating to the results of ballistics experiments is:

A) not authorized unless the experiment is conducted in court.
B) inadmissible unless the witness was trained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
C) generally admissible if the qualifications of the witness to give such testimony are clearly shown.
D) admissible only if the defendant takes the stand and thereby waives his or her self-incrimination rights.

Question 29

Speed detection devices are often used to record the speed of automobiles on highways. When considering the use of such devices:

A) the courts have generally taken judicial notice of the scientific reliability of speed detection devices as recorders of speed.
B) as courts have taken judicial notice of the reliability of radar speed detection devices, it is not necessary for the prosecution to offer evidence of the reliability of newly used devices.
C) since the reliability of radar devices was challenged in a Florida case, such devices are no longer used.
D) as radar and other devices are scientifically recognized as reliable, the officer will not be required to establish that the radar unit was operating properly at the time it was used.

Question 30

The courts have held that the results of neutron activation analysis:

A) cannot accurately detect the presence and amount of certain chemical elements.
B) are admissible if other safeguards are observed.
C) may be used in civil cases but not criminal cases.
D) are not valid unless there is a substantially large amount of material to be analyzed.

Question 31

In the Supreme Court case Maryland v. King (2013), involving the collection of DNA from arrestees:

A) the high court ruled that taking a sample from a felony arrestee for inclusion in a national database did not offend the Constitution and would produce evidence that could be admissible against the donor.
B) the high court ruled that such evidence taken from a donor could be used for inclusion within the database for identification purposes but was not admissible in evidence at criminal trials.
C) the Supreme Court of the United States determined that warrants were required for individuals in custody before a DNA sample could be obtained.
D) police are permitted to restrain an individual against his will and draw blood for a DNA sample even without a warrant.

Question 32

Researchers have made a significant breakthrough in using the DNA code present in blood and other body fluids to link evidence to a specific individual. In considering DNA fingerprinting:

A) most courts have decided that such testing has not been found to hold and enjoy a general acceptance in the scientific community.
B) in most cases the results have been admissible if performed in accordance with appropriate laboratory standards and controls to ensure reliability.
C) while state courts have recognized the reliability and accuracy of DNA fingerprinting, no federal court has yet acknowledged the use of this method.
D) as "genetic fingerprinting" has been accepted by the scientific community, there are few challenges to the handling of the samples.

Question 33

In People v. Wilkinson, the defendant wanted to prove that polygraph evidence was reliable and should be introducible in California state courts. The Supreme Court of California determined:

A) that given a proper foundation, polygraph evidence should be admissible.
B) that it could not be admitted due to the complete unreliability of the concept behind the polygraph machine.
C) there was not legal right to introduce polygraph evidence because the legislature had determined that the evidence was not generally admissible.
D) that the polygraph could not be used in court since its use would invade the province or function of the jury.

Question 34

In City of Cleveland Heights v. Katz, a police officer observed a vehicle driven by Katz traveling at an elevated level of speed, and managed to clock him with a radar unit. A municipal court convicted Katz of speeding and he appealed, contending that the radar gun and the instruments used to calibrate the radar gun had not been shown to have been properly tested. The appellate court:

A) held that the equipment had been shown to be in good order, and it had been sufficiently calibrated to be capable of accurately detecting speed so that the conviction was affirmed.
B) held that the radar gun, once tested at the factory for accuracy, gives presumptively good evidence provided it receives the correct voltage.
C) reversed the conviction because the municipal police department did not prove that the equipment that tested the tuning forks had been properly calibrated at the appropriate time.
D) courts may not take judicial notice of the reliability of scientific testing equipment, so that the municipal court could notice that the testing of the radar gun had been done appropriately and it upheld the conviction.

Question 35

In City of Cleveland Heights v. Katz, among other allegations, the defendant contended that the tools used to test the calibration of the radar gun in question must themselves have been proven to be in proper operating order before they could be used to determine the accuracy of the radar gun. The reviewing court:

A) stated that the on-board diagnostics that served as the "built-in" testing protocols were sufficient to allow the evidence of the defendant's speeding to be admitted and that external tests were redundant.
B) ruled that in order to prove that a radar unit was working properly, external test equipment must be shown to be in proper working order and the reviewing court reversed the defendant's conviction.
C) upheld defendant Katz's speeding conviction by stating that these kinds of tools have been in wide use for a long time, that police know how to use them, and that too much time has elapsed for their accuracy to be questioned by motorists.
D) held that the external secondary testing equipment used to evaluate the accuracy of a radar speed detection machine did not have to have any certification from the manufacturer concerning the reliability of the test equipment.

Question 36

Through the use of DNA evidence, a jury convicted the defendant of the rape and murder of four women over a period of time in the case of Commonwealth v. Gaynor. The defendant contended that in the case of mixed samples containing DNA, the testing protocols could not reliably detect primary from secondary contributors of DNA material or from artifact DNA. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that:

A) the science on which DNA testing is based has moved forward sufficiently so that, in the case of mixed DNA materials, the laboratory analysis will produce readings that are distinctive and reliable that will be in direct proportion to the differences in the amounts of the samples analyzed.
B) the science on which DNA analysis has been based has not moved forward sufficiently to meet the Daubert standards where mixed samples of DNA are involved.
C) mixed DNA samples are not capable of being analyzed to determine which person among many possibilities could be the source of one of the DNA samples and that Cellmark's methodology in dealing with the presence of mixtures or technical artifacts is generally not accepted within the scientific community.
D) artifact and mixed DNA samples do not produce any useful information based on the DNA profiles currently in use.