Previous Page  9 / 24 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 9 / 24 Next Page
Page Background

In Chambers

| Fall 2016 9

(Endnotes)

1.

Michael Keasler & Cathy Cramer, Appellate Courts Must Conduct Independent Research of Daubert Issues to Discovery “Junk Science,” 90 Judicature 62,

62-64 (2006); Sharon Keller & Donald Cimics, Appellate Courts Should Resist the Temptation to Conduct Their Own Independent Research on Scientific

Issues,” 90 Judicature 64, 64-65 (2006).

2.

Rowe v. Gibson, 798 F. 3d 622 (7th Cir. 2015).

3.

Michael E. Keasler is a judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

4.

Cathy Cramer is a staff attorney at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

5.

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

6.

See State v. Beard,

194W.Va

. 740, 461 S.E.2d 486 (1995);Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319, 332 (Okla. Crim.App. 1995); Commonwealth v.Vao Sok, 425 Mass.

787, 683 N.E.2d 671 (1997); State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 699 A.2d 596 (N.J. 1997).

7.

Jay P. Kesan, Note,An Autopsy of Scientific Evidence in a Post-DaubertWorld, 84 Geo. L.J. 1985, 2037-38 (1996).

8.

Id.

9.

522 U.S. 136 (1997).

10. State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 858 P.2d 1152, 1189 n.33 (Ariz. 1993).

11. Id.

12. Goeb v.Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800, 814 (Minn. 2000).

13. Harvey, 699 A.2d at 619.

14. K. Issac deVyver, Comment, Opening the Door But Keeping the Lights Off: Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael and the Applicability of the Daubert Test to

Nonscientific Evidence, 50 CaseWes. Res. L. Rev. 177, 199 (1999).

15. Douglas B. Maddock, Jr., Note, Federal Rules of Evidence: Raising the Bar on Admissibility of Expert Testimony: CanYour Expert Make the Grade After Kumho

Tire Co. v. Carmichael?, 53 Okla. L. Rev. 507, 513 (2000).

16. Sharon Keller is the Presiding Judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

17. Donald Cimics is a research attorney for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

18. This thesis was advanced in my concurring opinion in Hernandez v. State, 116 S.W.3d 26, 32-42 (Tex. Crim.App. 2003) (Keller, P.J. concurring). Because many

of the thoughts expressed in this article are also in that opinion, I will dispense with any further citation to it.

19. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574-575 (1985).

20. Id.

21. Ex parte R.T.S., 771 So.2d 475, 477 (Ala. 2000); State v. City of Dover, 891 A.2d 524, 531 (N.H. 2006).

22. Despite occasional confusion, de novo review and independent research are not comparable issues.The former concerns how evidence is reviewed - the

amount of deference given the factfinder.The latter concerns what evidence is reviewed - whether evidence outside the record should be considered at all.

See Jones v. United States, 548 A.2d 35, 41 (D.C.App. 1988).

23. Id. at 44.

24. Id. at 42 (“expert testimony can be helpful to update and critique some of the information available through published articles and judicial decisions”); United

States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 553 (6th Cir. 1993) (refusing to take judicial notice on appeal of a report because the government would not have a chance

to rebut it with expert testimony).

25. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158 (1970).

26. E.I. du Pont Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995) (the trial judge can “freely ask questions” of the expert witness).

27. Coleen M. Barger, On the Internet, Nobody KnowsYou’re a Judge:Appellate Courts’ Use of Internet Materials, 4J.APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 417, 431 (2002).

28. Id. at 436.

29. Perry Lumber Co. v. Durable Servs., 271 Neb. 303, 311,710 N.W.2d 854,861 (2006).

30. See Martinez, 3 F.3d 1191, 1194, 1197 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1062 (1994).

31. Daubert, 509 U.S. 579,592 n. 11 (1993).

32. See United States v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261, 265-267, 271 (4th Cir. 2003) (fingerprint and handwriting comparison).

33. See United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 799 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 834 (1992).

34. Jones, 548 A.2d at 46.

35. Martinez, 3 F.3d at 1194, 1197; see also the discussion in Jones, 548 A.2d at 44.

36. United States v.Youngberg, 43 MJ. 379, 385-386 (CAAF 1995) (acceptance of DNA testing evidence by large number of jurisdictions).