September/October 2003, Page p22

A graphic crime scene: Daubert and the evolving standards for forensic evidence
By Jon M. Sands; Robyn Greenberg Varcoe

Profound changes are occurring in every aspect of forensic evidence, from what is evidence, to gathering evidence, to introducing evidence in judicial proceedings. Evidentiary rules such as Fed. R. Evid. 702 and decisions such as Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) have transformed the role of judges from passive rubber-stampers of accepted scientific processes to vigilant gatekeepers, passing on the validity and relevance of the science itself. Advances in forensic evidence are freeing the wrongly accused and catching the guilty. Even the public is keenly attuned to the subject, and hit shows such as CSI reflect this interest. In light of these changes, it is appropriate to survey a room with a view of forensic evidence. Such a survey will reveal that while Daubert has redecorated the room, and opinions may still be out as to the legal decor, “the usual suspects” of forensic evidence still have a place, although the reasons they do may be new. In any event, this graphic illustration should help identify the evolving standards. The evidence is identified by the box, and the relevant case citations and authorities are referenced in the endnotes.

Notes
1. Time of Death: Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, 156 F.Supp.2d 451 (E.D.Pa. 2001), overruled on other grounds, Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, 320 F.3d 409 (3rd Cir. 2003) (expert may testify as to time of death). See generally Jessica Snyder Sachs, Corpse: Nature, Forensics, and the Struggle to Pinpoint Time of Death (2001).
2. Ballistics: U.S. v. Davis, 103 F.3d 660 (8th Cir. 1996)(expert may testify as to ballistics evidence). See generally Joan Griffin and David J. LaMagna, Daubert Challenges to Forensic Evidence: Ballistics Next on the Firing Line, The Champion, Oct. 2002, at 20.
3. Learned Treatise: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (learned treatise can be used to show that an expert has followed the scientific method that is practiced by a recognized number of scientists in their field). E.g. Fed. R. Evid. 803 (18) (hearsay exception for learned treatises); Spitz and Fischer’s Medicolegal Investigation of Death (3d e. 1993).
4. Burden of Proof: Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (party seeking admission of testimony bears the burden of proof).
5. Arson/Fire: McCoy v. Whirlpool Corp., 214 F.R.D. 646 (D.Kan. 2003) (expert testimony regarding source of fire not subject to Daubert); Tamez v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 100 S.W.3d 549 (2003) (testimony regarding cause of fire admissible under Daubert); Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Joseph Daniel Const., Inc., 208 F.Supp.2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (expert testimony regarding origin and cause of fire admissible). See generally Larry A. Hammond and Jon M. Sands, Trial by Fire, The Champion, April 1995, at 4.
6. Car/Tires: U.S. v. Ross, 263 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2001)(expert testimony regarding tire prints found in snow was admissible)
7. Plant: U.S. v. Patterson, 292 F.3d 615 (9th Cir. 2002) (testimony regarding plant growth admissible)
8. Eyewitness: U.S. v. Rincon, 28 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 1994)(eyewitness identification no longer per se inadmissible and is subject to Daubert analysis); U.S. v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 (8th Cir. 1996)(expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification inadmissible); U.S. v. Langan, 263 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2001)(eyewitness testimony inadmissible)
9. Weather: In Re TMI Litigation, 193 F.3d 613 (3rd Cir. 1999) (meteorologist testimony admissible)
10. Tides/Water: Industrial Enclosure Corp. v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York, 2000 WL 1029192 (N.D. Ill) (97-C-6850).
11. Paint: Campbell ex rel. Campbell v. Metropolitan Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 239 F.3d 179 (2nd Cir. 2001) (expert permitted to testify as to bodily injury from paint on walls); Cartwright v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 936 F.Supp. 900 (M.D.Fla. 1996) (testimony of physicial and toxicologist that exposure to paint caused asthma did not satisfy Daubert)
12. Laboratory Procedure: Janine Arvizu, Forensic Labs: Shattering the Myth, The Champion, May 2000, at 18; William Thorpe et al. See also Leonard Stamm, Essential Cases to Know In Handling Challenges to Scientific Evidence, The Champion, Aug. 2003, Pt 1 Sept./Oct., Pt 2 (DWI context).
13. Line-up: David Feige, ‘I’ll Never Forget That Face.’ The Science and Law of the Double-Blind Sequential Line-Up, The Champion, Jan./Feb. 2002, at 28.
14. Fingerprints: U.S. v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2003) (fingerprint evidence satisfies Daubert); U.S. v. Hernandez, 299 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2002) (fingerprint identification satisfies Daubert); U.S. v. Haward, 260 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2001) (same); U.S. v. Sherwood, 98 F.3d 402 (9th Cir. 1996) (no clear error to address without Daubert); U.S. v. Llera Plaza, 188 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (fingerprint evidence satisfies Daubert).
15. Polygraph/Lie Detector: U.S. v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225 (9th Cir. 1997)(polygraph evidence is no longer per se inadmissible and is subject to Daubert analysis); U.S. v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998)(per se rule against admissibility of polygraph does not violate a defendant’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights, in this case, polygraph evidence impermissible). See Charles W. Daniels, Using Polygraph Evidence After Scheffer, The Champion, May 2003, Pt 1, June 2004, Pt 2.
16. Hair/Race/Teeth/Brain Scan: U.S. v. Nimmer, 43 M.J. 252 (Armed Forces 1995) (hair follicle analyzing hair for drugs subject to Daubert); Williamson v. Ward, 110 F.3d 1508 (10t Cir. 1997) (hair analysis not subject to Daubert); Seivewright v. State, 7 P.3d 24 (Wyo. 2000) (because of wide acceptance of bite mark identification testimony and defendant’s failure to challenge methodology, no Daubert hearing necessary); Harrington v. State of Iowa, Iowa Supreme Court No. 01-0653 (2003) (although unnecessary to examine brain fingerprinting in this case, court left open the possibility that brain fingerprinting testimony would be permissible in future cases). Howard v. State, 701 So. 274 (Miss. 1974) (bite marks subject to Daubert).
17. Entomology: M. Lee Goff, A Fly For the Prosecution: How Insect Evidence Helps Solve Crimes (2000); Jessica Snyder Sachs, Corpse: Nature, Forensics, and the Struggle to Pinpoint Time of Death (2001).
18. Canines: U.S. v. Fisher, 2002 WL 563581 (E.D.Pa. 2002) (Daubert hearing is the wrong procedural vehicle through which to challenge the reliability of a canine alert)
19. Computer/Forensic: People v. Heuhn, 53 F.3d 733 (Colo.App. 2002) (proponent of computer evidence need not prove validity of underlying theory and reliability of computer because computers widely accepted and trusted); Harris v. State, 13 P.3d 483 (Okla.Crim.App. 2000) (computer animation not subject to Daubert). See generally Michael Cherry, Reasons to Challenge Digital Evidence and Electronic Photography, The Champion, July 2003, at 42; Wade Davies, Computer Forensics: How to Obtain and Analyze Electronic Evidence, The Champion, June 2003, at 30.
20. Paper/Abandoned: E.E.O.C.
v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 2003 WL 1961718 (2003) (expert testimony regarding ink-dating is inadmissible). Trash has no Fourth Amendment protection. See Jon M. Sands & Robyn Greenberg Varcoe, Boundaries of the Fourth Amendment, The Champion, Aug. 2002, at 28.
21. Drugs/Pharmaceuticals: U.S.
v. Cavely, 318 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2003) (expert testimoniny regarding estimate of amount of methamphetamine that could have been produced by four meth labs admissible); People v. Stiller, 617 N.W.2d 697 (Mich.App. 2000) (expert may testify as to level of drugs in blood at time of autopsy). See generally Mark P. Stevens and James R. Addison, Interface of Science and Law in Drug Testing, The Champion, Dec. 1999, at 18.
22. Voice: U.S. v. Bahena, 223 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2000)(spectrographic voice analysis inadmissible); U.S. v. Smith, 869 F.2d 348 (7th Cir. 1989)(inadmissible); U.S. v. Jones, 24 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1994)(lay opinion permissible, expert opinion inadmissible)
23. Photography: U.S. v. Villard, 700 F.Supp. 803 (D.N.J. 1988) (the jury can examine the photographs in question and determine for itself whether the individual is under 18 years of age). See also Michael Cherry, Reasons to Challenge Digital Evidence and Electronic Photography, The Champion, July 2003, at 42; Arthur P. Ginsburg & John T. Phillipsborn, Visual Forensics: Can They Really See What They Say They Can?, The Champion, March 1999, at 22.
24. Handwriting: U.S. v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2003) (testimony of handwriting expert admissible); U.S. v. Lewis, 220 F.Supp.2d 548 (S.D.W.Va. 2002) (testimony of handwriting expert inadmissible). U.S. v. Gricco, No. 01-90, 2002 WL 746037 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (admissible); U.S. v. Richmond, No. 00-321, 2001 WL 1117235 (E.D. La. 2001) (same); U.S. v. Lewis, 220 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D. W. Va. 2002) ( not admissibile); U.S. v. Brewer, No. 01-CR-892, 2002 WL 596365 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (not admissible); U.S. v. Saelee, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (D. Ala. 2001) (not admissible); U.S. v. Fujii, 152 F. Supp. 2d 939 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (not admissibile); U.S. v. Hidalgo, 229 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Ariz. 2002) (testifying about similarities but not ultimate opinion); U.S. v. Rutherford, 104 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D. Neb. 2000) (same); U.S. v. Santillan, No. CR-96-40169, 1999 WL 1201765 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (same); U.S. v. Hines, 55 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D. Mass. 1999). See generally Lynn C. Hartfield, Daubert/Kumbo Tire Challenges to Handwriting Analysis, The Champion, Nov. 2002, at 24.
25. Pornography:  U.S. v. Katz, 178 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 1999)(if expert unable to render reliable opinion as to age of individual in images using Tanner scale, then testimony inadmissible); U.S. v. Villard, 700 F.Supp. 803 (D.N.J. 1988) (the jury can examine the photographs in question and determine for itself whether the individual is under eighteen years of age)
26. Frye Test: Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (expert testimony must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field)
27. Firearms: U.S. v. Jackson, 327 F.3d 273 (4th Cir. 2003) (expert permitted to testify as to stun-gun marks); U.S. v. Fisher, 2002 WL 31571549 (E.D.Pa. 2000) (expert may not testify whether handgun was dropped or thrown). See generally Joan Griffin & David J. LaMagna, Daubert Challenges to Forensic Evidence: Ballistic Next on the Firing Line, The Champion, Oct. 2002, at 20.
28. DNA: U.S. v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 1997) (Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism “RFLP” DNA testing is admissible); U.S. v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 1996) (Polymerase Chain Reaction “PCR” DNA is admissible). William C. Thompson et al, Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence: Essential Elements of a Competent Defense Review, The Champion, April 2003, at 16.
29. Footprints: U.S. v. Ross, 263 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2001) (expert testimony regarding footprints were admissible). See Mark Hansen, Believe It or Not, ABA Journal, June 1993, at 65 (discrediting footwear experts).
30. Chain of Custody: U.S. v. Holmquist, 36 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 1994) (stating that the court acts as gatekeeper); U.S. v. Brown, 136 F.3d 1176, 1181 (7th Cir. 1998) (purpose of chain of custody is to “ensure that the items offered into evidence are in substantially the same condition as they were at the time the proponent came into possession of the evidence); U.S. v. Cardenas, 864 F. 2d 1528 (10th Cir. 1989) (chain of custody does not have to be perfect; U.S. v. Gary, 774 F.2d 368 (10th Cir. 1985) (factors for complete chain).
31. Clothes: Libas v. U.S., 118 F.Supp.2d 1233 (U.S.Ct.Int’l Trade 2000) (tests regarding fabric not admissible under Daubert). See Mark Hansen, Believe It or Not, ABA Journal, June 1993, at 65 (discrediting footwear experts).
32. Blood spatter/luminol: U.S. v. Holt, 46 M.J. 853 (Navy-Marine Corps Ct.Crim.App. 1997)(blood spatter evidence permissible in courts of Military Justice); U.S. v. Hill, 41 M.J. 596 (Army Ct.Crim.App. 1994) (luminol testimony permissible because it is not a new or novel scientific evidentiary process)
33. Cause of Death/False Confession: U.S. v. Hall, 93 F.3d 1337 (7th Cir. 1996) (“false confession” expert can meet Daubert). See generally Spitz and Fischer’s Medicolegal Investigation of Death (3d ed. 1993).
34. Crime Scene Investigation: U.S.
v. Horn, 185 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Md. 2002) (field sobriety test does not meet Daubert). See generally Gareth Jones and Barry Nolan, Cases Involving Law Enforcement Officers, July 2002, Pt 1, Aug. 2002, Pt 2; Leonard Stamm, Essential Cases to Know In Handling Challenges to Scientific Evidence, The Champion, Aug. 2003, Pt 1, Sept./Oct. 2003, Pt 2.
35. Fibers/Carpet:  Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc. 167 F.3d 146 (3rd Cir. 1999) (expert may not testify that carpet caused certain health problems)
36. Soil: U.S. v. Larry Reed & Sons Partnership, 280 F.3d 1212 (8th Cir. 2002) (soil expert testimony admissible)
37. Judicial Notice: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (matters of well established scientific fact are matters of which judicial notice may be taken)
38. Daubert Gatekeeper: Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999) (Daubert’s gatekeeping obligation, requiring an inquiry into both relevance and reliability, applies not only to “scientific” testimony, but to all expert testimony). Thomas F. Liotti, Evidentiary Voir Dire, The Champion, May 2002, at 26. Hillary Sheard, Challenging ‘Junk Science’ and More — What to Do About Daubert, The Champion, Jan./Feb. 2000, at 52. Cf. Janet C. Hoeffel, The Sixth Amendment’s Lost Clause: Unearthing Compulsory Process, 2002 Wisc. L. Rev. 1275 (2002) (compulsory process as basis for admission of scientific evidence).


National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)
1150 18th St., NW, Suite 950, Washington, DC 20036
(202) 872-8600 • Fax (202) 872-8690 • assist@nacdl.org