• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
    • Faculty Scholarship Series
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
    • Faculty Scholarship Series
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of openYLSCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    The Ultimate Opinion Rule and Forensic Science Identification

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Kaye, The Ultimate Opinion Rule ...
    Size:
    765.2Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Kaye, David
    Keyword
    Law
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/18126
    Abstract
    For decades, scientists, statisticians, psychologists, and lawyers have urged forensic scientists who compare handwriting, fingerprints, fibers, shoeprints, toolmarks, paint chips, and other items to change their ways. At last it seems that "[t]he traditional assumption that items like [these] have unique patterns that allow experts to accurately determine their source ... is being replaced by a new logic of forensic reporting." With the dissemination of"probabilistic genotyping" software that generates "likelihood ratios" for DNA evidence, the logic is making its way into U.S. courts. Recently, however, the Justice Department's Senior Advisor on Forensic Science commented on a connection between prominent statements endorsing the new logic and an old rule of evidence concerning "ultimate issues." He suggested that "some people ... would like to pretend that [Federal Rule of Evidence 704] doesn't exist, but it actually goes against that school of thought." This essay considers the nexus between Rule 704 and forensicscience testimony, old and new. It concludes that the rule does not apply to all source attributions, and even when it does, it supplies no affirmative reason to admit them over likelihood statements. In ruling on objections to traditional source attributions, courts would be remiss to think that Rule 704 favors this type of opinion testimony over the newer evidence-centric statements.
    Collections
    Faculty Scholarship Series

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2025)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.