After reading and referring to the two articles that were provided, in my opinion I think the Daubert Standard is the best for Florida. The best cases are known to thrive from scientific evidence that can be used in court and deemed to be very important in these cases. Most judges and lawyers are not technically trained (education, work experience, or knowledge) of the evidence in a particular field such as Forensic Science. The decision to involve expert witnesses in a case can provide “reliable” information for both the judge and jury.
Back in 1923, the Frye standard was adopted in a manner that was vague in my opinion. When it comes down to the expert testimony, the decision of the admissibility of evidence was determined based on one fact …show more content…
In my opinion the validity of scientific techniques and the underlying reason behind an expert’s testimony, should be applied to facts of the case. Although the rules of evidence that involves the Daubert standard, could be a challenge to prove for forensic experts, the admissibility of evidence will actually be valid upon scientific techniques that have been experimented and tested with publications and peer reviews to back it up. The problem with Frye is that with the advances in technology and methodology in forensic applications the reliability of such evidence could be based off the mistrial and false rulings of many cases instead of techniques that were tested, peer reviewed, have known potential error rates, etc. Therefore emphasizes is being put on the importance of determining to reliability of scientific evidence by the origin of its scientific method. The scientific evidence will less likely be misused or falsified to sway one side or the other. Daubert applies both technical and specialized knowledge in the admissibility of an expert witness. For all these reasons mentioned above I believe that at some point, in all fairness of the cases, the Daubert standard should be adopted by the state of
Back in 1923, the Frye standard was adopted in a manner that was vague in my opinion. When it comes down to the expert testimony, the decision of the admissibility of evidence was determined based on one fact …show more content…
In my opinion the validity of scientific techniques and the underlying reason behind an expert’s testimony, should be applied to facts of the case. Although the rules of evidence that involves the Daubert standard, could be a challenge to prove for forensic experts, the admissibility of evidence will actually be valid upon scientific techniques that have been experimented and tested with publications and peer reviews to back it up. The problem with Frye is that with the advances in technology and methodology in forensic applications the reliability of such evidence could be based off the mistrial and false rulings of many cases instead of techniques that were tested, peer reviewed, have known potential error rates, etc. Therefore emphasizes is being put on the importance of determining to reliability of scientific evidence by the origin of its scientific method. The scientific evidence will less likely be misused or falsified to sway one side or the other. Daubert applies both technical and specialized knowledge in the admissibility of an expert witness. For all these reasons mentioned above I believe that at some point, in all fairness of the cases, the Daubert standard should be adopted by the state of